HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29885 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the informant, 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.204 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chhatari, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The similarly placed co-accused person Madan, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29869 of 2025. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2025. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, she is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 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 deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and there is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Shantam Kamlesh Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) nothing on record to rebut the said. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. 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- Kamlesh 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 pressurize/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. September 1, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 29885 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad