JUDGMENT 1. - Heard both the learned counsel. 2. Mr. Dhankhar argued that the only evidence against the petitioner is that of his identification. This petitioner was identified by one witness Padamsingh only. It was also argued that co-accused Omprakash who was also identified by 2 witnesses, has been released on bail by the order of this Court. According to him, the case of the present petitioner, therefore, is not distinguishable from that of Omprakash. 3. Mr. Alvi opposes this bail-application, and states that the accused- petitioner was arrested from Jail at Mathura and other dacoity cases are also pending against him. He argued that in the present case also, he was indentified by one witness, and hence, bail should not be granted to him. 4. This is no ground that because other dacoity cases are pending against this petitioner, so, the present bail should also be rejected. Bail- applications are considered on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Some case may be pending against this petitioner, but, what was the part assigned to him in this present case, would be looked into. So, while deciding bail applicable, in my opinion, no consideration should be given to the fact that other cases are also pending against the accused. The circumstance of the present case were looked into by me. The petitioner was arrested on 23rd Sept. identification parade was conducted on 9th Oct. 84. I have also perused the been mentioned in the said memo that in the midnight when the occurrence took place, this petitioner threw torch-light on the face of Padam Singh, and on account of this, he could identify the accused-Petitioner. I do not want to comment anything about this witness whether or not be could identify the accused at that moment. But, the fact that the co-accused who was identified by 3 person, has been released on bail by this court, the case of the present petitioner also stands on the same footing. 5. Therefore, the bail-application under section 439, CR.P.C. is accepted and it is directed that petitioner Jaipal, son of Shri Onkar Singh be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Addl. 5. Therefore, the bail-application under section 439, CR.P.C. is accepted and it is directed that petitioner Jaipal, son of Shri Onkar Singh be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Addl. Session Judge, Deeg, for his appearance before the said court, as and when called upon to do so during the trial against him in this case. *******