The principle of parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications, when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused is released on bail.

( 1 ) IN the third bail application moved by the petitioner for bail in case Crime No. 53 of 1989 under Section 302, I. P. C. of P. S. Ganj, district Rampur Honble N. L. Ganguli, J. has referred the following question to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement: whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of party by moving a second or third bail application in a circumstance that at a later date a co-accused of the same criminal case with a similar role was granted bail by the another Honble Judge before whom with out disclosing the fact that the bail application of another co-accused with similar role had already been rejected, by another Bench, bail was granted.

( 2 ) THE short facts relevant for the decision of the aforesaid question are as under:a First Information Report was lodged against Iqbal, Dildar Khan, Khursheed and Nanha at 11. 10 a. m. on 9. 10. 1989 in the above mentioned police station. Khursheed and Dildar had moved application No. 1865 of 1991 for bail. This application was rejected by Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. Nanha also moved first bail application which was rejected on 7. 12. 1991. The second application which was rejected on 7. 12. 1991. The second application moved by Khursheed, Dildar and Nanha were rejected. Khusheed was granted bail on the ground of age in the third attempt.

( 3 ) IN the third bail application moved on behalf of Dildar, bail was granted by Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. Thereafter, Iqbal Husain Khan was also granted bail by Honble B. P. Singh, J. A prayer was made that the applicant be also granted bail on the ground of parity. The Honble Single Judge referred to two judgments of this Court, namely, Shobharam v. State of U. P. and Sayed Khan v. State of U. P. 2. The Honble Judge is of the view that the aforesaid two decisions are taking contrary view about parity in granting of bail and this matter should be set up at rest by a pronouncement of a larger Bench.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.

( 5 ) IT was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that formerly this Court had been granting bail on the ground of parity. In this connection, our attention was drawn to Ram Roop v. State of U. P. 3. In this case, it was observed that as a co-accused having role similar to the applicant in that case was granted bail, the applicant should also be granted bail.

( 6 ) THE next case, in which reliance was placed, is Sobha Ram v. State of U. P. (supra ). In this case, Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. had observed that it was not at all obligatory upon the counsel of an applicant-accused to indicate that the application of a co-accused had been rejected. The Honble Judge had referred to Ali Husain v. State of U. P. 4 in which Hontble S. K. Dhaon, J. had placed reliance on Kalloo v. State of U. P. : 1989 A WC 65. In Kalloos case the desirability of consistency in matter of sentence was considered. It is not applicable to the matter of bail.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel had also placed reliance on Sanwal Das Gupta v. State of U. P. 5 in which Honble D. N. Jha, J. had observed that where a bail was granted to a co-accused, then the Magistrate can in view of maintaining parity admit the co-accused to bail provided he offers himself to be bailed out. 7a. Hadi v. State of U. P. 6. was also cited by learned counsel for applicant. This is a very short judgment of Honble P. Dayal, J. In this case, the applicant was bailed out on the ground that theco-accused had been bailed out earlier. The facts of the case have not been stated in the judgment. Hence it is not of much help to the applicant.

( 8 ) OUR attention was drawn to Kesho Ram v. State of Assam7. In this case, the offence was alleged against the applicant falling under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail was granted by the Sessions Judge, but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved f