Radhika Devi Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Radhika Devi Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Radhika Devi on the ground of parity; release upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence, non-pressurizing/intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on dates fixed.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Radhika Devi, implicated in Case Crime No. 306 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 61(2), 85, 80(2), 92 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act (Police Station-Bariyarpur, District-Deoria), is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial, in particular on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused Amit Gond who has already been enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the judgments of Paras Ram Vishnoi (Supreme Court), Nanha s/o Nabhan Kha (this Court) and Satender Kumar Antil (Supreme Court), 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.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Radhika Devi is to 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 the conditions that (i) she shall not tamper with evidence during trial, (ii) she shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses, and (iii) she shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed.

Key takeaways

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.ratio¶8
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.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted on parity — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 65 (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18256 of 2025, order dated 11.8.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:135149). Applicant Radhika Devi, languishing in jail since 24.12.2024 with no criminal history, sought bail in Case Crime No. 306 of 2024 (Sections 115(2), 61(2), 85, 80(2), 92 BNS; Section 3/4 of D.P. Act), Police Station-Bariyarpur, District-Deoria, during pendency of trial. The prayer was opposed by the learned A.G.A., but the facts of parity with co-accused Amit Gond (enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24157 of 2025) and of no criminal history were not disputed. Taking into consideration the Supreme Court judgments in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, CBI (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) and this Court's judgment in Nanha s/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. (1993 Cri.L.J. 938), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court allowed the bail application on the ground of parity: release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach entitles the prosecution to move a bail cancellation application before this Court; observations made in granting bail shall not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion on the testimony of witnesses.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135149

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18256 of 2025

Applicant :- Radhika Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Amresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 306 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 61(2), 85, 80(2), 92 BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Bariyarpur, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Amit Gond has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24157 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.12.2024, having no criminal history. 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.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the coaccused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

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.

Let the applicant- Radhika Devi 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

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 :- 11.8.2025 Karan

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad