1. The applicant has filed this application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

2. The short facts for the disposal of this bail application are as follows :

Crime No. 621/06 has been registered by Police Station, Moghat Road, Khandwa under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC against the applicant and co-accused. According to prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused used to demand money from the deceased Arun and for that, they used to torture him. They also threatened him to implicate in a false case. The deceased Arun had also paid the amount for several times to the accused persons, but ultimately he committed suicide because of the torture caused to him by all the accused.

3. An application for regular bail was filed in the Sessions Court by the applicant and the same was dismissed on 7.2.2007 on the ground that earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed and thereafter, there is no material change in the circumstances, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail even though, co-accused has already been granted bail by the High Court.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that charge-sheet has already been filed in the Court. The applicant is resident of Pandhana, District Khandwa and there is no likelihood that he will abscond. The co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused and on the principle of parity, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. It is apparent from the record of MCrC No. 62/07 that an application for regular bail was filed by co-accused Smt. Jaya Bai in the High Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2007 passed by this Court. It is very much clear from the order impugned that the fact of grant of bail to co-accused by the High Court was in the knowledge of the Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected the repeat bail application of the applicant. In the order impugned, it has been stated that though co-accused Smt. Jaya Bai has been granted bail by the High Court, but after rejection of first application of the applicant, there is no material change in the circumstances and on the basis of changed circumstances only, the applicant could have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. It is very difficult to understand as to what was the thinking of the Presiding Judge behind this order. If, a previous bail application of a person was dismissed on merits by the Court and thereafter, the co-accused has been granted bail by the Higher Court and then another application is moved before the Court, who rejected the previous bail application, it is duty of the Presiding Judge to consider on the basis of principle of parity whether the case of applicant is identical to the case of co-accused or not. This fact has not been considered at all by the Presiding Judge, while deciding the repeat bail application f the applicant.

7. If an application for bail is rejected on merits by the Lower Court and thereafter, the bail application of co-accused is allowed by the High Court, certainly, it amounts to a material change in the circumstances. It is a well settled law as there are so many citations and I am of the opinion that every judicial officer must be aware of this principle that if an accused is granted bail and the case of co-accused is identical, the co-accused should also be granted bail. It has been held in the case of Badri Nihale and others v. State of M.P. [2006 (II) MPWN 39 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 166] that it is a well established principle that if an accused has been granted bail and the other accused is similarly placed, he shall also be entitled to grant of bail. It appears that this settled principle has been ignored by the Presiding Judge in this matter.

8. It would not be futile exercise to mention at this stage that if a judicial officer rejects the bail applications either against the facts o