The law of parity may be applied in granting bail to a co-accused, but cannot be invoked in rejecting the bail application of another co-accused.

( 1 ) THE two accused-applicants, namely, Yunis, son of Noora and Haroon, son of Nazir have applied for bail under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 429/120-B, I. P. C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused-applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate, and Shri Ram Shiromani Shukla, learned Counsel for the complainant.

( 3 ) THE prosecution story as embedded in the F. I. R. is that the deceased Yakeenuddin Qureshi and the co-accused Bhuggal were on an inimical terms, cases in Criminal Courts were pending between the parties. The co-accused Bhuggal and others had made efforts for the arrest of the deceased Yakeenuddin Qureshi, but the High Court had put embargo on the arrest of the deceased, this had been felt by the co-accused Bhuggal and others. On 29-1-1997 one day before the occurrence, the co-accused Bhuggal had told the informant (brother of the deceased) that he had saved the deceased from the High Court but he would not be able to save him from the accused persons. On 30-1-1997 at about 6. 30 a. m. the deceased and the informant when came out of the mosque after offering prayers, the seven accused persons Bhuggal, Haroon, Yunis, son of Noora, Iliyas, Yunis, son of Noor Mohammad and Mohammad were sighted. The co-accused Bhuggal exhorted and all the seven accused persons armed with revolvers indiscriminately fired on the deceased, resulting in injuries to him. Deceased was taken to hospital, on way he succumbed to the injuries. The F. I. R. was lodged immediately after the occurrence at 7. 50 a. m. at Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.

( 4 ) OUT of the seven accused persons arrayed in the case, co-accused Mohammad Qureshi by the learned Sessions Judge, co-accused Quayum by Honble Mr. Justice T. P. Garg by order dated 12-1-1998, and the co-accused Yunis, son of Noor Mohammad by this Court on 3/02/1998 have been enlarged on bail. Against the order dated 12/01/1998 releasing the accused Quayum, the State went in S. L. P. before the Supreme Court, but subsequently the State did not press the petition on the plea that the State intends to move for cancellation of the bail. On the other hand, the bail to the co-accused Iliyas has been disallowed twice by Honble Mr. Justice J. C. Mishra firstly by order dated 18/09/1997, secondly by order dated 29/05/1998. The argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-applicants is that on the ground of parity, the accused-applicants are entitled to bail as three other co-accused have already been released on bail earlier. On the other hand the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that, since the bail application of the co-accused Iliyas has been rejected by another Bench of this Court, not only once but twice, the accused-applicants are not entitled to bail. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Smt. Sita Pati v. State, (1996) 20 All Cri R 35; Satyendra Singh v. State of U. P. , (1996) 20 All Cri R 867 : (1997 AIHC 1051); and a Division Bench of this Court in Chander alias Chandra v. State of U. P. , (1998) 22 All Cri R 356 : (1998 All LJ 870 ).

( 5 ) IN Smt. Sita Pati v. State (supra), this Court has held that the facts of each case differ and even a seemingly insignificant fact may change the entire complexion of the case. If bail is granted or refused in one case it does not have the effect of laying down in law and as such a bail order cannot be cited as precedent. Bail cannot be allowed or refused on the ground that bail has been granted or refused in a similar case, but different case because each case has its own peculiarities and the question of parity does not arise at all. In Satyendra Singh v. State of U. P. (supra), this Court has further held that rule of parity is not applicable in all cases, one Judge may be impressed by a particular point not considering sufficient in law for granting bail. Another Judge is free to take different view and may refu