HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6712 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mantosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.95 of 2024, under Sections 304B, 498A, 302 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sujanganj, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is at par of the co-accused, Pushpa Devi, although the only point is that applicant is the husband. Informant has categorically stated before the concerned Investigating Officer that deceased was suffering from mental illness and was being treated since the age of 10 and he (informant) himself got mentally disturbed after hearing the death of his daughter, as such, mistakenly instituted the instant FIR. The similarly placed co-accused person, Pushpa Devi, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42588 of 2024, as such, since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co- accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 07.04.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mantosh Singh, Rishabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Shankar Chaubey @ Kallu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 7. Let the applicant- Ravi Shankar Chaubey @ Kallu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. 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 based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 13, 2025 Saif BAIL No. 6712 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad