The main legal point established in the judgment is that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, especially in heinous crimes involving counterfeit currency. Each bail application must be considered on its own merit, and the court highlighted the significance of interpreting legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.-"What offence is made out on the basis of possession of counterfeit currency notes" is the main point that falls for consideration in this bail application.

2. Another important point for consideration is "Whether on granting bail by a Bench to one accused. another Bench also is bound to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the principle of parity?".

3. By means of this application .Inder section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Cr.P.C.), payer "for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant Shyam Lal S/o Ram Kishore in case crime No. 485/2007 under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E I.P.C. and 2/3 V.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (in short, 'the Gangsters Act') of P.S. Saini, District Kaushambi.

4. An FIR was lodged on 31.10.2007 by Sri V.R. Premi, S.H.O. P.S. Saini, District Kaushambi. A case under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-0 and 489-E IPC was registered at crime No. 485/2007 against three persons namely Hublal, Shyam Lal (applicant herein) and Rajesh Kumar. The allegations made in the FJR, in brief, are that on getting information that Hublal S/o Ram Kishore Kurmi R/o village Mithepur Sayara is indulging in the activities of preparing counterfeit currency notes with his brothers, a raid was made by S.H.O. V.R. Premi with other police personnel at the house of Hublal on 31.10.2007 at about 8.40 p.m. The accused persons were found indulged in preparing counterfeit currency notes. One scanner printer is said to have been recovered, which was being used for preparing counterfeit currency notes by the accused Hublal. The applicant Shyam Lal was also found indulged in the process of counterfeiting currency notes and sixty nine counterfeit currency notes of' Rs. 1000/- (total Rs. 69,000/-) were recovered from him. One hundred fifty six counterfeit currency notes (41 currency Notes of Rs. 500, twenty currency notes of Rs. 50 and 95 currency notes of Rs. 100 Total Rs. 31000/-) are said to have been recovered from another co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who was also found indulged in the process of counterfeiting currency notes. All the three accused persons were arrested and brought to P.S. Saini, where case was registered against them as mentioned herein-above. After investigation section 2/3 V.P. Gangster Act also has been added against the applicant and other accused.

5. I have heard arguments of Shri J. H. Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri W. H. Khan, Counsel for the applicant and AGA, Shri Rajeev Tiwari for the State.

6. Before coming to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant about the merit of the bail application, I would like to express my views about second legal question, which I have posed for consideration as stated herein-above. This question has been posed for consideration, because during the course of hearing on the bail applications. generally it is being argued by Hon'ble Members of the Bar that this Bench is bound to grant bail to the accused, if similarly placed accused having same role has been granted bail by another Bench. The Hon'ble Members of the Bar contend that principle of parity should be accepted, by this Bench also, as the sole ground for bail. It is worthwhile, to mention that in present case also, the co-accused Hublal has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.2.2009 passed in bail application No. 3311 of 2009 and another co-accused Rajesh Kumar also has been granted bail by another Bench vide order dated 3.3.2009 passed in bail application No. 5726 of 2009 and in added sections 467 and 420 IPC also, the accused Rajesh Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 18.~.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail application No. 6760 of 2009. Hence, necessity to consider aforesaid legal question has arisen.

7. The matter of granting bail on the ground of parity has been considered in several decisions of this Court. The Full Bench in Sunder Lal v. State, I did not acc