Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-Since, these four bail applications pertain to and arise out of the same FIR No. 33/2004 P.S. Shivdaspura District Jaipur for the offence under Section 395 IPC, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have contended that the entire amount allegedly looted has been recovered and similarly situated two co-accused persons Ramdayal and Om Kumar have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court. They have further contended on the strength of D.B. Decision of this Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (1) RLR 335 , that the in-consistent, different or contrary orders should not be passed by the different Judges of the High Court and normally parity must be maintained and the decision of the co-ordinate and larger benches should not be ignored. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and involved in this case on the basis of un-founded suspicion. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. She has submitted that grant or refusal of bail is discretionary with the Court and decision in each case depends upon the facts of that particular case. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the case diary. 5. Looking to the gravity of the allegations and the status of the accused persons, I was initially dis-inclined to grant them the indulgence of bail, but in the face of the mandate of D.B. Decision of this Court as also the observations of the Honble Apex Court in a recent case Kalyan Singh Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, AIR 2005 SCW 536, that the judicial principle requires that the uniformity and parity should normally be observed and the earlier decisions of the co-ordinate benches or the larger benches must be followed. Otherwise, there would be uncertainty in justice delivery system and forum hunting. 6. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of bail to the petitioners also. 7. Otherwise, there would be uncertainty in justice delivery system and forum hunting. 6. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of bail to the petitioners also. 7. In the result, all these four bail applications are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Kapil Kumar s/o Hukam Chand, Gajendra s/o Madanlal, Rajesh Malviya s/o Shivram and Tharendra Singh s/o Devraj Singh shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial.