JUDGMENT K.K. Chaubey, J. - The applicants Ram Sakal and Mangal sons of Mahabir residents of Shea Babri P.S. Lalganj district Basti involved in Crime No. 127 of 1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 301 and 323, I.P.C. and 120-B, I.P.C. of P.S. Lalganj District Basti have filed this second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on merits, on 11-12-1989 by this Court. 2. In this second bail application, the main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that two other co-accused were also armed with country made weapons but they have already been released on bail and so on the ground of parity the applicants should a to bail. The copy of the order by which co-accused Babu Ram and Rana Sangram were admitted to bail has not been produced. Therefore, it is not possible to say as to on what ground they have been admitted to bail. Even if assuming that there no special circumstance for admitting Babu Ram and Rana Sangram to bail, it may be seen as to whether the applicants whose bail application has been earlier rejected on merits, are entitled to be released on the ground of parity. In support of this contention learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following rulings : Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109 . In this case it was held that on the ground of consistency the applicants should also be convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. instead of Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. as the other accused has been convicted and sentenced. Sanwal Das Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, 1986 (23) ACC 79. In this case it was held that if the Sessions Court granted bail to some accused on the ground of parity, the Magistrate could grant bail to other accused. Ram Roop @ Bhim Sen v. State of U.P., 1987 UPA Cr. R. 30. In this case the co-accused had been released on bail and on this ground the second bail application of another accused was allowed. 3. Against these, reference may be made to Said Khan and others v. State of U.P., 1990 ACR 54 . In which reliance was placed on a ruling of this Court in Sita Ram v. State, 1981 ACR 113 . 3. Against these, reference may be made to Said Khan and others v. State of U.P., 1990 ACR 54 . In which reliance was placed on a ruling of this Court in Sita Ram v. State, 1981 ACR 113 . In this case it was held : "The claims of the principle of consistency and demand for parity by the accused, however, are not compelling ones and cannot override the judges contrary view in the case before him if even the awareness of the desirability of consistency fails to move him to modify his view. In other words this is only a factor to be considered and not a governing consideration. 4. As said above, this is a case of broad day light occurrence in which the bail was earlier refused after taking into consideration all the aspect of the case. Simply because some other court has released two of the accused on bail, I am not inclined to change or modify the view taken earlier. None of the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is of any help. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, fails. 5. It was also argued that the applicants are in jail for the last several months and on this ground also they should be released on bail. A copy of the order-sheet of the Court below has not been filed to show that for no fault of the applicants, the case has not been disposed of. Without going through the copy of the order-sheet, it is not possiole to accept this contention. 6. The third contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was based on the supplementary affidavit in which it was said that the applicant Mangal alias Mangal Prasad son of Mahabir is suffering from facial paralysis and expert treatment is required. In support of this contention, two documents have been filed. One is a report of the Jail Doctor and another is also a letter probably of the Jail Doctor referring the case to the Chief Medical Officer, Basti giving details of the ailment of Mangal Prasad. The Jail Doctor has reported that in spite of treatment, the improvement is not satisfactory. One is a report of the Jail Doctor and another is also a letter probably of the Jail Doctor referring the case to the Chief Medical Officer, Basti giving details of the ailment of Mangal Prasad. The Jail Doctor has reported that in spite of treatment, the improvement is not satisfactory. In view of those facts, the applicant Mangal alias Mangal Prasad son of Mahabir involved in Crime No. 127 of 1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323, I.P.C. and Section 120-B, I.P.C. Police Station Lalganj district Basti be released on parole for two months from the date of hIs release on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Basti after expiry of the period of parole he must surrender to the Court of C.J.M. concerned. 7. With the above observations, this second bail application is rejected.