Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108185 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12171 of 2025 Applicant :- Madhuri Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Haseeb Alam Ansari,Kamalvesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vidya Nath Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Haseeb Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Narayan Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vidya Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.280 of 2024, under Sections 85, 61(2), 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The similarly placed co-accused person Pooja has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3573 of 2025. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024. 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. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. on the ground that the applicant is one of the main accused persons as she wanted her younger son to be married with the younger sister of the deceased person and as such used to ill-treat the deceased. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial 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 Investigationa and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 7. Let the applicant- Madhuri Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad