The principle of parity can be applied in the grant of anticipatory bail, where similarly situated co-accused have been granted interim bail.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The cases have been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. Vide this common order, CRM-M No.22710 of 2021 titled Amit Grewal Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M No.22786 of 2021 titled Vijay Pal Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and CRM-M No.22612 of 2021 titled Uday Bhan Dagar Vs. State of Haryana are being disposed of.

3. Petitioner(S) seek(s) grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.404 dated 26.05.2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station city Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

4. On 16.06.2021, following order was passed by this Court:-

"This common order is being passed in above-mentioned three petitions, which have been filed seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.404 dated 26.05.2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that one of the co-accused, namely, Satpal approached this Court by filing CRM-M-15776-2021 seeking concession of anticipatory bail and interim bail has already been granted in his favour by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that not only co-accused Satpal, but another co-accused, namely, Amit Kumar has also been granted the benefit of interim bail by this Court while passing the order dated 21.05.2021 in CRM-M-20117-2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioners are similarly situated as co-accused, namely, Satpal and Amit Kumar and therefore, they be also extended the concession of same benefit of interim bail as extended to co-accused, namely, Satpal and Amit Kumar.

Notice of motion to respondent for 14.07.2021.

Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana-respondent.

Learned State counsel concedes that co-accused, namely, Satpal and Amit Kumar, against whom similar allegations alleged in the FIR, have already been granted the benefit of interim bail by this Court.

That being so, the petitioners on the ground of parity are also entitled for the grant of interim bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have already deposited full penalty amount imposed upon them or the amount of Rs.3 lakhs as per the conditions imposed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting the interim bail to co-accused, namely, Satpal and Amit Kumar, as the case may be, therefore, no further deposit is required to be made in these cases.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the said statement.

Keeping in view the above, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation. In the event of their arrest, they shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction subject to the following conditions:-

i) That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.

(ii) That they 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 the said facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) That they shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) That they shall abide by all the conditions as enshrined under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

To be heard along with CRM-M-15776-2021. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner(s) has(have) complied with the aforesaid order.

6. The factual details of the case have not been disputed by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh and he submits that the petitioner(s) is/are no more req