An applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity if the case of the co-accused, who has been granted bail, is similar to that of the applicant.

( 1 ) THIS is a second bail application moved by Applicant Shobha Ram in a case under Ss. 302/ 307/ 452, I. P. C. The first bail application which was moved by the present applicant and one Kishan Pal was rejected by me on merits on 11-3-1991.

( 2 ) THE present bail application has been moved on the ground that after the rejection of first bail application moved by the applicant, bail has been granted to co-accused Chandra Pal by Honble Mr. Justice N. L. Ganguli on 20-7-1991. It is argued that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused Chandra Pal and on the ground of parity, the applicant should also be granted bail.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the complainant as well as the State, it has been asserted that after the rejection of the first bail application moved by the present applicant, one application by another co-accused was rejected by Honble Mr. Justice K. K. Chaubey and this fact was not brought to the notice of Honble Mr. Justice N. L. Ganguli when the bail application of co-accused Chandra Pal was allowed. It is contended that in such circumstances, the ground of parity will not be available to the present applicant. On behalf of the State and the complainant, however, it has not been denied that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Chandra Pal who has been granted bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there was no obligation on the part of co-accused Chandra Pal or his counsel to state before the Court about the fact that the bail application of other-co-accused has been rejected. It is contended that the bail application of co-accused was considered on merits and was allowed on its merit. The first bail application could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the bail application of other co-accused earlier had been rejected. Thus according to the learned counsel there could not be any parity in respect of rejection of bail applications though the applicant can claim parity on the ground that the bail application of co-accused, whose case is similar to that of the present applicant, has been allowed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel has referred several cases in which this Court has allowed second bail applications on the ground that other co-accused has been granted bail after the rejection of first bail application. Those records have been called from the office. Some of these cases are misc. Bail Application Nos. 1360 of 1987, 7697 of 1988; 3546 of 1990; 3347 of 1990; 199 of 1991 and 3056 of 1991. In the last case, the second bail application was moved by Rai Munna Singh in a case under S. 302, I. P. C. The first bail application was rejected by Honble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur earlier. However, subsequently co-accused Virendra Singh was granted bail by Honble Mr. Justice K. K. Chaubey. the applicant then moved second bail application which was allowed by Honble G. P. Mathur, J. on the ground of parity though the Honble Judge clearly mentioned that he was still of the opinion that the applicant was not entitled to the privilege of bail, but however, as his case was not distinguishable on facts from the case of Virendra Singh, co-accused, it would not be proper to keep the applicant in jail when co-accused, who was similarly situated, had been released on bail. Thus, in this case, the bail was allowed only on the ground of parity.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the decision in the case Ali Husain v. State of U. P. , 1990 UP Cr R 93. In that case also, Honble S. K. Dhavan, J. placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in 1989 AWC 65, Kallu v. State, allowed bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

( 6 ) IN the case of Kallu v. State, 1989 AWC 65, two separate special leave petitions were filed by different accused persons against the same judgment of the High Court. Both the S. L. Ps. were heard and decided by different Benches. One of the same was dismissed by one Bench while the