Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38119 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8990 of 2025 Applicant :- Ruksana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mandvi Tripathi,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Ms. Mandvi Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present case along with co-accused Smt. Danishta and Firoz and however bail application of co-accused Firoz has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court but bail application of Smt. Danishta has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. She further submits, as according to the confessional statement of accused persons, co-accused Firoz was the principal accused, therefore, his bail application was dismissed and therefore case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Firoz. It is further submitted, case of applicant is exactly at par with co- accused Smt. Danishta. She further submits, even there can be no parity of bail rejection order. 5. She further submits, however, as per allegation when applicant was arrested then she confessed her guilt and on the pointing out of the applicant and others a cloth was recovered, which allegedly used in the crime but neither applicant ever confessed her guilt nor any recovery was made on her pointing out. She further submits, except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. She further submits, even without any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recovery, applicant cannot be held guilty. 6. She further submits, applicant is lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 15.02.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with co-accused Smt. Danishta, Firoz and others. However it appears, bail application of co-accused Firoz has been dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court but on facts, it appears, case of applicant is distinguishable from him as according to the prosecution he was principal accused. 10. Record further suggests that bail application of co-accused Smt. Danishta has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on facts case of applicant is exactly at par with her. 11. Further, applicant is lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter she is in jail since 15.02.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant - Ruksana be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad