Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141099 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25566 of 2025 Applicant :- Gajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Naujhil, District-Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Smt. Anita Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26089 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2025, having criminal history of one case which stands explained. 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 State Law Officer, however, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have 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, 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- Gajendra Singh 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. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad