Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

"On granting bail by one Judge to any accused, is another Judge also is under obligation to grant bail to the similarly placed co-accused on the basis of the principle of parity without considering the merit", is the main point that falls for consideration in this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in which prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicants Toran Yadav s/o Puntey Yadav and Raghubeer Yadav s/o Toran Yadav in Case Crime No. 356 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379, 411 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Poora Kala, District Lalitpur.

2. An FIR was lodged by Smt. Bhoori Raja, wife of Mohan Singh on 24.7.2008 at P.S. PooraKala, District-Lalitpur, where a case under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 379 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered at Case Crime No. 356 of 2008 against 1.Santosh 2.Bhan Singh 3.Kalyan Singh 4. Shankar Yadav 5. Ballu Yadav 6. Toran Yadav and 7. Raghuveer Yadav. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that Raj Bhan Singh @ Badey Raja s/o the complainant Smt. Bhoori Raja had gone to Jhansi to meet his lawyer on 24.7.2008 and when after consulting his lawyer, he was coming back to his house on motorcycle and reached near Hanumanji Temple at about 3:50 p.m., the accused Santosh, Bhan Singh and Kalyan Singh came from behind on motorcycle and surrounded Raj Bhan Singh. At the same time, the accused Shankar Yadav, Ballu Yadav, Toran Yadav and Raghubeer Yadav having axes and rifle in their hands came from the side of village. The accused Santosh fired repeated shots from his rivolver on Raj Bhan Singh, due to which he fell down. Shankar Yadav also fired on Raj Bhan Singh from rifle and other accused gave blows by axes. Due to the injuries sustained in the said incident, Raj Bhan Singh died on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, the complainant Smt. Bhoori Raja, her daughter-in-law and village people Rajju, Mulayam Singh and Godan Singh rushed towards the place of incident. When daughter-in-law of the complainant and wife of deceased Raj Bhan Singh fell down on his dead body, the accused Santosh Singh fired on her, due to which she sustained injuries. It is further alleged in the FIR that while fleeing away from the place of incident, the accused Shankar Yadav carried the motorcycle of the deceased.

3. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the applicants and AGA for the State.

4. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicants was that co-accused Ballu Yadav, who was also armed with axe as per FIR and statements of the witnesses, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.3.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applicatin No. 4230 of 2009 and hence, on the basis of the principle of parity, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail, as these applicants also are alleged to be armed with axes. The contention of the learned counsel was that since the similarly placed co-accused Ballu Yadav has been released on bail on merit by another Bench of this Court, hence this Bench also is bound to grant bail to the applicants on the basis of the principle of parity.

5. On the matter of granting bail on the basis of the principle of parity, it was submitted by learned AGA that parity is not the sole ground for bail and this Bench is not bound to release the applicants on bail on the basis of the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4230 of 2009, whereby bail to the co-accused Shanker Yadav and Ballu Yadav has been granted.

6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the matter of granting bail on the basis of the principle of parity, I entirely agree with the submission of learned AGA that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail.

7. The matter of granting bail on the ground of principle of parity has been considered in several decisions of this Court and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document