HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35713 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.303 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Saroorpur, District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons Harsh and Ravi Soam @ Munna have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.1.2025 and 3.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.37996 of 2024 and 18548 of 2024, respectively. The trial is at its conclusive end, as such, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.12.2023, having no criminal history to her credit. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, she is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Singh Yadav, Mandeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hemant Kumar Archana Alias Dishu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the informant and learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by them. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Let the applicant- Archana Alias Dishu involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 35713 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad