Heard the petitioners counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This is a successive bail petition filed by accused Nos.5

and 6 and these petitioners earlier have approached this Court

by filing Criminal Petition No.10186/2021 and this Court has

rejected the bail petition vide order dated 14.1.2022 and in

paragraph No.6 of the judgment while rejecting the bail petition

made an observation that when the specific allegations are made

3

against these two accused persons that they have inflicted injury

with the handle of the spade as well as wooden stick and taking

note of the factual aspects of bail granted in favour of other

accused persons, which has been referred supra, the allegation

against them is that they assaulted with their hands and the

same is found in column No.17 and when such being the factual

aspects of the case, it cannot be held that the petitioners are

entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

3. Now fresh petition is filed on the ground of parity again

and though made the ground on merits and counsel mainly

contend that similar allegations made against accused No.4 and

he has been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022

contending that these petitioners are also entitled for bail on the

ground of parity. The counsel referred the said order wherein

prosecution case is not discussed and only extracted the order of

Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 and in paragraph No.5 comes to

the conclusion that the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition

No.8964/2021 dated 10.12.2021 on the ground of parity is

4

entitled for bail on the ground that most of the accused have

already been enlarged on bail.

4. The counsel also on questioning him whether he has got

a copy in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, since the bail is

granted based on the said order, produced the same before the

Court i.e. in respect of accused Nos.3 and 8, wherein the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court made an observation that

investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also filed

and some of the accused are also enlarged on bail and on the

ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled for bail, as the

main accused No.1 who caused the injury said to be committed

death of the decease and the same is taken on record.

5. The contention of the counsel appearing for the

petitioners that when the accused No.4 has been granted bail

and similar allegations made against these petitioners also, they

may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also would contend that

except accused Nos.1, 5 and 6, all are enlarged on bail and

hence these petitioners may be enlarged on bail on the ground

of parity.

5

6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would

contend that in the said order the Co-ordinate Bench has not

discussed anything about the overt act of accused No.4 and

specific overt act is made against him that he inflicted injury

with the heavy wooden pound and when the same is not

discussed in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the same

cannot be relied upon to extend the benefit of parity. The

counsel also vehemently contend that accused Nos.3 and 8 who

have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021,

an observation is made that accused No.1 who caused the injury

said to be committed death of the deceased and also not

discussed anything about the role of accused Nos.3 and 8 in the

said order also and hence the said order also cannot be relied

upon to grant the bail on the ground of parity.

7. The counsel would vehemently contend that in column

No.17 of the charge sheet specific overt act allegation is made

against these two petitioners that they inflicted injury with

wooden stick and also the handle of the spade and also there

were 13 multiple injuries and cause of death is also on account

6

of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries

sustained.

8. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would

contend that bamboo wooden stick, heavy round wooden pound

and moderately heavy round wooden club