Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21780 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 466 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunita Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Surya Bhan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Surya Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case No. 1402 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2018, under Sections 186, 342, 353, 427 of IPC, Police Station - Bilsi, District - Budaun, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has claimed parity with the co-accused Anil Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11407 of 2023 vide order dated 16.10.2023. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. The applicants have criminal history of one case which has been explained in supplementary affidavit filed today in court. 5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him. 6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the 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 judgement 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 applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 8. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Sunita Devi, Geeta Devi and Guddo, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 14.2.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad