JUDGMENT 1. - On the date of polling of Panchayat Elections, Birbal Singh, a candidate from Ward No. 23 of Panchayat Samiti Jhunjhunu was murdered in a broad day light. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu on the date of the incident i.e. January 29, 2000. The case of the prosecution is that Harphool Singh accused was the main rival of Birbal Singh in the said election. On account of political enmity Harphool Singh alongwith 33 co-accused persons formed unlawful assembly and came to village Bhimsar at abut 12.00 noon in three jeeps. They bodily lifted Birbal Singh, gave him beating and killed him. Body of the deceased Birbal Singh was taken away by them. According to the Post Mortem Report Birbal Singh at the time of his death was 75 years of age. He died on account of shock due to extensive hemorrhage caused by 31 multiple injuries on all parts of his body including head and chest. All the four petitioners Naresh, Rajkumar, Virender and Bhagirath were arrested by the police in connection with the said case on charges under sections 147, 149, 365, 325, 302 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In the instant 'bail petitions preferred under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code all the petitioners have asserted that allegations levelled against them are identical with that of the allegations made against the co-accused Ram Niwas, Indra Singh and Intjar, who have been granted bail by this court therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. 3. I have reflected over the rival submission and carefully scanned the documents and orders placed before me. 4. It is well settled that while considering application for bail, a balance has to be struck between maintenance of social order and liberty of a person. 'Law of bails' should balance between two conflicting demands viz. shielding the society from misadventures of persons allegedly involved in crime and presumption of innocence of accused till he is found guilty. Bail in non-bailable cases is not a matter of right. The question of grant of bail in such cases cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. The court has to take an over all \view taking all the relevant matters into consideration. Bail in non-bailable cases is not a matter of right. The question of grant of bail in such cases cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. The court has to take an over all \view taking all the relevant matters into consideration. If on examination of a given case it transpires that the case of the accused before the court is identical, similar on facts and circumstances, to the accused who has been bailed out, then exceptional cases apart, the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should be released on bail. But parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. The court has to take into consideration the entire material placed before it. Granting of bail is a matter of judicial discretion vested in the court. The principle analogous to `res-judicata' is not applicable to bail applications. 5. In Babu Singh v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1978 SC 527 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised i under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the court to the individual and the community ............. So deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution. Deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. 6. In Shahzad Husan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan ( AIR 1987 SC 1613 ) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus-(Para 6) ".........Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution." 7. In State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe ( AIR 1991 SC 1603 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with an order of Designated court granting bail to accused Anand Chintaman Dighe, an accused in Shiv Sena Corporator murder case observed that the learned Judge grossly erred in foreclosing the trial by prejudging the evidence which was yet to come on record. In pars 9 of the judgement their Lorships observed thus : "...... we do not appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the matter. The police investigation prima facie shows that mafia-type terror and fear psychosis was created which led to the cold-blooded murder of Shridhar Khopkar. The learned Judge acted illegally in appreciating the statements of witnesses and material collected by the investigating officer at the investigation stage. He should have permitted the evidence to be recorded and thereafter dealt with the same in accordance with law." 8. While granting bail to co-accused Indra Raj Singh this Court (Hon'ble G.L. Gupta J.) observed that the evidence of beating by occupant of the other jeep including Indra Raj Singh is vague, therefore Indra Raj Singh deserves to be released on bail. Co-accused Intjaar was enlarged on the ground that he had not taken part in the occurrence of beating. 9. After having perused the bail orders of co-accused passed by this court, I am unable to pursuade myself to reconcile either with the reasonings or the conclusions reached therein. The evidence which is yet to come on record can not be prejudged by me at this stage in view of the ratio indicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Chintaman Dighe's case (supra). Though petitioners Rajkumar and Virendra have not been named in the FIR but in the statements of eye witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the very same day of the occurrence they have been named as members of the unlawful assembly. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that all the eye witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they gave a parrot like version and even named a dead person as accused but it will be to early to make comment on the material collected by the investigation agency. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that all the eye witnesses are near relatives of the deceased and they gave a parrot like version and even named a dead person as accused but it will be to early to make comment on the material collected by the investigation agency. From the record it is prima facie established that murder of an old man of 75 years was committed in a thickly populated area at the time of polling of Panchayat election on account of political enmity. The offenders who are dare devils having no regard to law, to my mind are not entitled to be released on bail. 10. All the three bail applications accordingly stand rejected.Bail Applications Rejected. *******