JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the accused applicant, Shri Alok Sharma, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Rekha Dhakar. 2. Perused the material available on record. 3. Indisputably, the accused applicant lodged FIR No. 28/2000 on 15.4.2001, registered at Police Station Gopalgarh, district Bharatpur, and for the same incident complainant side lodged FIR No. 29/2000, on the same date at the same Police Station giving different version. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that from perusal of medical reports it is evident that the accused applicant has received two injuries on his person and his daughter, Pavitra, has also received gun shot injuries. It is a fact that Hukum Singh died due to gun shot injury, attributed to the accused applicant, but there is no explanation in FIR No. 29/2000, about the injuries caused to the accused applicant. There is also no explanation about the gun shot injuries received by Pavitra, daughter of accused applicant. 5. The learned public prosecutor is opposing the bail application of the accused applicant on the ground that gun shot injury, due to which, Hukum Singh died is attributed to the accused applicant. It is urged by her that the accused applicant has exceeded his right of private defence in causing death of Hukum Singh. 6. The accused applicant side and complainant side are giving two different versions of the same incident, which I decline to explore on merit at the stage of disposing of the present bail application and, it is left open for the trial court to decide after conclusion of trial. 7. The learned public prosecutor urged before me that one bail application of a co-accused has already been rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, therefore, the present bail application of present accused applicant is also liable to be dismissed on the same ground. 8. Suffice is to say in this regard that granting or refusing bail of a co-accused by a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, is not treated as precedent for granting or refusing bail application of an another accused person which was not before it for consideration. 9. The aforesaid question came up for consideration before me in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail App. No. 4858/2000 Har Sahay Meena v. U.O.I. and in S.B. Cr. Misc. App. 9. The aforesaid question came up for consideration before me in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail App. No. 4858/2000 Har Sahay Meena v. U.O.I. and in S.B. Cr. Misc. App. No. 533/2001 Shanti Chand v. C.B.I. , which are finally disposed of by a composite order, on 15.3.2001, holding that granting or refusal of bail by one co-ordinate Bench of the same Court is never treated to be a precedent for another co-ordinate Bench of the same Court. Each bail application moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is to be decided on the basis of probability or improbability of involvement of each accused person, role assigned to him in committing offence(s) and, severity of the punishment, which conviction may entail against him. A note of caution was added in the aforesaid order dated 15.3.2001, that it is not humanly and practically possible for a co-ordiante Bench to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised inflexible guidelines either to grant or refuse a bail application of an accused person who has not moved a bail application before it. Even after rejection of one bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., an accused person is entitled to move successive bail application on fresh ground provided it was not available to him on the earlier occasion when his bail application was rejected. 10. Looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am persuaded to enlarge the accused applicant on bail, without exploring the merit of the case further, at this stage. 11. It is ordered that the accused applicant Shri Chand son of Shri Girraj Singh, be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before the said court during the pendency of trial against him in this case.Bail granted. *******