The principle of 'parity' can be a determining factor in granting bail, especially when the charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending adjudication before the Trial Court.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 120/2016 under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi.

2. The present case has been registered at the instance of Naveen Girdhar, who is the complainant of the FIR in question. The complainant is engaged in the business of property dealer in the name and style of M/s. Hari Krishna Property Dealer. It is stated that the complainant had taken a house on security from the accused Leela Ram and after completion of agreed time period, the complainant asked Leela Ram to return his security money, but the same was not returned. The complainant made a call to the accused Leela Ram on 10.02.2016 at about 9.15 PM asking his money back, but the accused started misbehaving and mistreated in filthy language on phone and also threatened the complainant to kill.

3. It is alleged that on the same day, the accused Leela Ram alongwith other co-accused persons Ramesh Kumar, Somu @ Nitesh Tangoria and Gulshan Kumar, Rahul entered his office. It is alleged that the accused Leela Ram and his nephew Gulshan Kumar were having sharp edged iron weapon (RAMPI) and the other accused persons were having lathis/dandas. It is further alleged that the petitioner had attacked on him with RAMPI and his brother was given beatings by other accused persons with lathis/danda and belt. As a result of the beatings, the complainant and his brother Kapil sustained grievous injuries. Upon hearing noise, the brother of both victims (Sanjay) came and entered in the office and at that time other public persons were also gathered outside the office of the complainant and therefore, all the accused persons ran away. Doctor of the hospital opined the nature of injuries being dangerous due to stab injuries. It is further alleged that the complainant remained admit in BLK Hospital from 10th to 16th February 2016 whereas his brother Kapil Girdhar remained admit from 10th to 19th February 2016. Statement of Kapil was recorded who specifically stated that the accused Leela Ram and his family members had attacked with common intention to kill him as well as his brother Naveen.

4. The accused persons including the petitioner were arrested in this case on 14.02.2016 and during investigation, weapon of offence being one danda was recovered at the instance of Ramesh and buckle was recovered at the instance of Nitesh @ Somu. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in court on 21.04.2016. On 18.03.2016 the accused Ramesh was released on regular bail, while accused Nitesh @ Somu was released on bail on 11.07.2016. However, the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest. The petitioner moved an application before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2016 while observing that the statement of the complainant and other material witnesses are yet to be recorded.

5. Mr. G.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and even perusal of the FIR in question, would reveal that it is not supported by the version of the complainant and it was only because of sudden provoked and quarrel, the complainant sustained the injuries. It is further contended that the petitioner was put to one day police custody but the police could not recover any sharp edged weapon from him. Since the charge sheet in this case has been filed, therefore learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no more required for any further investigation. Not only this, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the other co-accused persons namely Ramesh Chander and Nitesh Tongaria have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore the petitioner seeks parity with those co-accused persons. It is categorically submitted on behalf of