SHIV SHANKER, J. This is the first bail application moved on behalf of applicant Babloo in case crime No. 424 of 2005, under Section 302/34 I. P. C. , P. S. Mawana, District Meerut. 2. Briefly prosecution case according to the F. I. R. is that Smt. Indravati, wife of Krishna Pal Singh (deceased) lodged the F. I. R. on 24-11-2005 at 9. 50 a. m. against accused Vinod alias Fauzi, Babloo (present applicant), Titoo and Vineet by alleging that there is dispute of land in between the first informant and accused Vineet and on that basis, her son Pawan was murdered by Vineet and others about three years ago. Therefore, the case was got registered as crime No. 311/02 under Section 302 I. P. C. , Police Station Mawana, District Meerut. This murder case is pending at the time of alleged occurrence. Therefore, all the four accused persons were already threatening to kill her husband. 3. On 24-11-2005, she, her husband Krishna Pal Singh and her brother Bhisma were going for labouring work at 7. 30 a. m. from the village and reached at the road situated near the house of Vinod. The same time Vinod, Babloo, Titoo and Vineet came out from the house of accused Vinod armed with country made pistol and surrounded her husband and made firing upon him, consequently her husband had fallen down on the ground due to sustaining fire- arm injuries. Her brother raised alarm, thereafter, the accused persons fled away from there. Her husband had died on the spot due to sustaining fire-arm injuries. After leaving dead-body of the deceased, she lodged the report against them. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. as well as the whole record. 5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that four accused persons had made firing upon the deceased but two fire- arm injuries were found on dead-body of deceased, one injury which was caused by another weapon, has not been explained. It is further contended that there is no motive against him and it is deemed to be against co-accused Vineet. Other co-accused Vinod and Titoo are also real brothers of applicant. They had also no motive in committing murder of deceased. It is further contended that 100 Grams undigested food was found in the stomach. It is further contended that there is no motive against him and it is deemed to be against co-accused Vineet. Other co-accused Vinod and Titoo are also real brothers of applicant. They had also no motive in committing murder of deceased. It is further contended that 100 Grams undigested food was found in the stomach. Therefore, it reveals that this occurrence had taken place in the dark night early in the morning and he has been implicated falsely. 6. It is further contended that he is in judicial custody in above case and the bail application of co- accused Vineet has already been rejected but the principle of parity in rejection of bail order is not applicable. Learned A. G. A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 24-11-2005 at about 7. 30 a. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged by Smt. Indravati wife of deceased on the same day at 9. 50 a. m. within two hours. Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the F. I. R. against the present applicant alongwith three others. It has been specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. as well as statement of the first informant and the other eye-witnesses that she alongwith her husband (deceased) and her brother Bhisma were going for labouring work on 24-11- 2005 at about 7. 30 a. m. and reached at the road situated near the house of co-accused Vinod. Thereafter, co-accused Vinod, Babloo, Titoo and Vineet came out from the house of co-accused Vinod armed with country made pistol and they made firing with their weapons upon her husband, consequently he had fallen down on the ground due to sustaining injuries and died on the spot. This version is supported with the post-mortem of the deceased as three fire-arm injuries were found in the dead- body of the deceased having one contusion. This contention has no force that ante-mortem injury No. 1 could not be caused by fire- arm. It could be caused by fire-arm and pellets were also recovered from the dead-body of the deceased. It is liable to be deemed that one shot of any accused could not hit in the body of the deceased after making firing. This contention has no force that ante-mortem injury No. 1 could not be caused by fire- arm. It could be caused by fire-arm and pellets were also recovered from the dead-body of the deceased. It is liable to be deemed that one shot of any accused could not hit in the body of the deceased after making firing. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that there is any material conflict with the version of the F. I. R. and the post-mortem report of the deceased. So far as the motive is concerned, co-accused Vineet and others are facing trial in murder case of Pawan, son of first informant. The deceased was an eye-witness of the murder case of Pawan as submitted by learned A. G. A. and his statement was not recorded till the date of alleged occurrence and he was murdered for getting benefit by extinguishing one eye-witness. Therefore, motive is also prima facie against co- accused Vineet, Babloo (present applicant and his brothers) or companions of co- accused Vineet. Bail application of co-accused Vineet had already been rejected by this Court is not disputed. So far as the contention of finding of undigested food is concerned, naturally labourers used to go from their house after taking some breakfast early in the morning. In such circumstances it could be found in his stomach. This is the case of a broad day light murder. Country made pistol which was allegedly used in committing of murder of deceased was recovered on the pointing out of present applicant alongwith empty cartridges of 12 bore. It is worthwhile to mention here that one country made pistol with empty cartridges of 315 bore was also recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Vinod. There will be no ground to grant bail on the basis that he is in judicial custody for one year in the above noted case. 8. In the end, this is the case of a broad daylight murder wherein the F. I. R. had been lodged without any delay. The present applicant is also assailant. Prosecution version is supported with the post-mortem report of the deceased and the alleged weapon was recovered on his pointing out which was allegedly used in committing murder and motvie is also established. Bail application of co-accused Vineet has already been rejected. The present applicant is also assailant. Prosecution version is supported with the post-mortem report of the deceased and the alleged weapon was recovered on his pointing out which was allegedly used in committing murder and motvie is also established. Bail application of co-accused Vineet has already been rejected. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant and as such the bail application is liable to be rejected. 9. Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant Babloo is hereby rejected. Application rejected. .