1. This is the second petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 247/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is laid against nine accused persons. The petitioner is shown as accused no. 4. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a considered order dated 21.02.2018 in Criminal Petition No. 664/2018. However, subsequent to the dismissal of the said petition, this court enlarged accused no. 7 on bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No. 1514/2018 dated 24.04.2018. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above petition seeking to extend the benefit of the said bail order to him on the ground of parity as well as on the ground that the earlier order of dismissal was passed by this court at crime stage and since then, investigation is completed and therefore, there is change in the circumstances which entitle the petitioner to sustain the second bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

4. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the submission of the charge-sheet subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier petition, it has given rise to a changed circumstance to maintain second petition for the same relief. Further, the learned counsel points out that this court while enlarging accused no. 7 on bail in Criminal Petition No. 1514/2018, has observed that in view of the conspicuous absence of the date of recording the statement of CW-10 to CW-12, the eye witnesses cited by the prosecution, in the remand application submitted by the Investigating Officer, serious doubt is cropped up about very presence of the said eyewitnesses during the occurrence. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in view of the said discrepancy, accused No. 7 was enlarged on bail. The case of the prosecution in so far as the present petitioner is concerned is that he stabbed on the stomach portion of the deceased. The said overt acts are sought to be substantiated by the very same eyewitnesses namely CW-10 to CW-12. But as already observed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 1514/2018, the presence of these petitioners at the spot of occurrence is doubtful. Hence on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. In support of his argument, learned counsel has heavily placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. 1993 Criminal Law Journal 938 and also the decisions rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 1658/2018 dated 22.03.2018, Criminal Petition No. 201195/2016 dated 29.11.2016, Criminal Petition No. 362/2018 dated 23.03.2018 and Criminal Petition No. 8592/2015 dated 24.02.2016, to buttress the point that the principle of parity could be extended even after the rejection of the earlier application filed by the petitioner for the relief under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned HCGP, however, has disputed the submissions and would submit that all the contentions urged by the petitioner were canvassed before this Court in the earlier petition and the same have been considered and negatived by this Court and therefore, merely because a co-accused has been enlarged on bail, the benefit of the said order cannot be extended to the petitioner. In other words, the submission of the learned HCGP is that on account of the rejection of the similar contentions, the subsequent order does not furnish a changed circumstance so as to maintain the second petition on the same grounds.

8. I have bestowed my careful attention to the submissions made at the Bar and have perused the order passed by this Court i