JUDGMENT : Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0435 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 304/34, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 26.09.2023 against the applicant, her two sons and the applicant's mother in law stating that because of a property dispute all the accused persons armed with sticks and iron rods came to the informant's house, assaulted the informant's brother and when the informant's brother entered inside the house the accused persons also entered there and when the informant's father tried to intervene, he was also assaulted, due to which he fell unconscious. The informant's father was taken to a hospital from where he was referred to Medical College, Lucknow and he died during treatment on 19.09.2023. The F.I.R. was lodged one week after the death of the informant's father. 4. On 07.01.2025 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court by means of following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. 3. Steps within ten days. Office to proceed accordingly. 4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending her arrest in Case Crime/ FIR No.0435 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 304/34, & 506 IPC, Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District- Ayodhya. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 17.09.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 26.09.2023 without explaining the delay. In the aforesaid FIR, general allegation of beating has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 17.09.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 26.09.2023 without explaining the delay. In the aforesaid FIR, general allegation of beating has been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. Being lady, the present applicant may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Further, co-accused Giraja, having similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2776 of 2024, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, liberty of the present applicant may be protected. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the investigation is going on and the applicant undertakes that she shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, therefore, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, her liberty may be protected. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but he could not controvert the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that there is nine days' unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; in the FIR, general allegation of beating has been levelled against all accused persons including the present applicant; co- accused Giraja, having similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court; the present applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.; undertaking of the applicant that she shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra), I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till the next date of listing. 8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. 9. List in the week commencing 10.02.2025. 10. 8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. 9. List in the week commencing 10.02.2025. 10. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Manju Singh (Vikas Ki Maa as per FIR) shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- I. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; II. that the applicant 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 applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; IV. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant; V. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness." 5. The opposite party no.2 has put in appearance by filing a vakalatnama through her counsel but no counter affidavit has been filed either by the opposite party no.2 or by the State. 6. Learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of above, the interim order dated 07.01.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed