Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122389 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24544 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Kusma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Singh,Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajatshatru Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.482 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Maudaha, District- Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Jaynarayan Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20052 of 2025. The FIR is delayed by three days. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2025. He further submitted that 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. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him. 6. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 7. 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 judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 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, 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. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Let the applicant- Smt. Kusma, 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 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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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 :- 25.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad