The principle of 'parity' can be a significant factor in granting bail, especially when co-accused persons with similar roles have already been released on bail.

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 dealing 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 started talking in filthy language on phone and also threatened to kill the complainant.

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 a sharp edged iron weapon (RAMPI) and the other accused persons were having lathis/dandas. It is further alleged that the petitioner had attacked him with a RAMPI and his brother was beaten 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 commotion, the brother of both victims (Sanjay) entered the office and at that time other public persons also gathered outside the office of the complainant because of which, all the accused persons ran away. Doctor of the hospital opined the nature of injuries as being dangerous due to stabbed 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 a 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 11.04.2016. 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 is aged 29 years of age and a gym trainer for the last four years, pursuing graduate from Delhi University and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that even the perusal of the FIR in question would reveal that there is no mention of the name of the petitioner.

6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was only because of the sudden provoked and quarrel, the complainant sustained the injuries. It is further contended that the charge sheet in this case has been filed on 21.04.2016, therefore learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no longer 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 see