JUDGMENT :

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. The petitioner claims that a co-accused namely, Ajit Kumar Mal was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 14.08.2024. The present petitioner is similarly circumstanced and as such on the ground of parity he prays for favouring him with a similar bail order.

2. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the present petitioner is not standing on the same footing with the other accused persons who were granted bail by this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant raises vehement objection to the bail prayer. According to him, the earlier bail orders were granted to the concerned accused persons in the absence of the de-facto complainant or her learned counsel. Without hearing the submission of the learned counsel of the de-facto complainant, the Hon’ble Court cannot consider the bail prayers of the accused persons. In support of his contention he has referred to a judicial decision reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 (Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Anr.)

4. The status report filed by the learned State counsel shows that there are 23 (twenty three) charge sheet named witnesses and the prosecution proposes to examine all the witnesses. The date for examination of de-facto complainant (PW1) has been fixed on 09.01.2025.

5. We have considered the Case Diary as well as materials on record. It is true that on 14.08.2024 one of the co-accused namely, Ajit Mal was enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on the ground, inter alia, that the prosecution has failed to show the reason as to why the custody trial of the accused person is required. It is further revealed that on 27.08.2024 another accused Basanta Mal has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on the ground of parity. On both the dates i.e. 14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024, the de-facto complainant did not appear before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Benches as aforesaid.

6. We have considered the case law reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra). In the said case law it has been clearly mentioned that victim has a right to participate in the trial of the case including at the stage of hearing of the bail application and the court should hear the submission of the victim at the time of such hearing. Though we accept that in view of such judicial decision, it has become the law of the land that during hearing of the bail application of the accused the victim has a right to participate, but neither in the provisions of section 437 to 439 of Criminal Procedure Code nor in the said case law, there is any requirement/or obligation to the effect that the victim should be given an advance notice of hearing of dates in connection with bail application. In our case on 14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024, the victim did not appear to contest the bail application and, therefore, as there is no requirement for serving prior notice to the victim or the de-facto complainant, the relevant bail applications were considered in presence of the learned counsel of the State and also of the learned advocates of the accused. However, this Co-ordinate Bench cannot act as an appellate forum or a revisional forum over the order passed by another Co-ordinate Bench and therefore, we are constrained to confine our discussion so far as the present petition is concerned. In other words, we shall consider the present petition on its merits and not on the plea of parity as claimed by the present petitioner, since in this case, at the time of hearing the learned counsel of the de-facto complainant intervened and objected to the bail prayer of the petitioner.

6.1. In the aforesaid reported decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier guidelines for consideration of the bail application. In para 30 it has been clearly mentioned:-

“30. It will be beneficial at this stage to recapitulate the principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail. This Court in Pr