JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shiv Shanker, J.—This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Kamal Singh in case crime No. 443 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, Kayamganj, district Farrukhabad. 2. Heard Sri Sant Sharan Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, S/Sri Amit Kumar Singh and P.B. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that seven persons have been named in the F.I.R. and it has been alleged that all the seven accused persons including present applicant made firing upon Prakash Chandra who died due to sustaining fire arm injuries. According to the post-mortem report, only two fire arm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. It has not been specified as to who two persons caused fire arm injuries on the body of deceased among seven accused persons. It is further contended that the informant is brother-in-law (sala) of deceased. The presence of informant is doubtful. It is further contended that the incident had taken place in darkness. There was no source of light. Bail of co-accused Ram Kishan has already been granted by another Bench of this Court. The applicant has been bailed out in another case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 427, I.P.C. Therefore, his bail application is also liable to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. had urged that bail of co-accused Ajay Kumar, Arvind, Nanhey alias Ajeet have already been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide its order dated 1.11.07 and 7.11.07 on the ground that the present application along with companions committed another offence relating to tampering the witnesses. Therefore, his bail application is not liable to be allowed. 5. Seven persons including the present applicant have been named in the F.I.R. and two fire arm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. The role of all the seven accused persons has been attributed to make firing upon the body of deceased and it has not been specified anywhere as to whose shots were hit on the body of deceased. Therefore, five among seven persons had not caused any injury on the body of deceased. 6. The role of all the seven accused persons has been attributed to make firing upon the body of deceased and it has not been specified anywhere as to whose shots were hit on the body of deceased. Therefore, five among seven persons had not caused any injury on the body of deceased. 6. This incident had taken place on 1.6.07 at 6.30 p.m. while the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant who is sala of deceased on 1.6.07 at 8 p.m. after covering distance of one and half kilometres. Therefore, it was not lodged promptly while the informant was allegedly present with the deceased. Bail of co-accused Ram Kishan has already been granted by Hon. S.S. Kulshrestha vide its order dated 9.10.07 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 23245/07 on the following grounds : “That seven persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. for opening fire from the lethal weapons but the victim sustained only two fire arm injuries. It is not ascertainable as to who caused those injuries. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused applicant deserves bail”. 7. Therefore, the case of present applicant is also identical on the same footing with above co-accused. So far as the rejection of bail of co-accused Ajay, Arvind and Ajeet alias Nanhe is concerned, their bail applications have been rejected by another Bench (Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.) vide its orders dated 1.11.2007 and 1.12.2007 passed in criminal misc. bail applications No. 24348/07, 24380/07 and 28011/07 on the ground that “tampering of evidence and threatening of witnesses by raiding the house when the male members have gone to mortuary with the body of deceased. Regarding the said tampering and threatening, F.I.R. of crime No. 444/07 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, I.P.C. has been registered at P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad against the applicant. Parity is not the rule of law but it is the rule of convenience and since on the earlier occasion the factum of tampering with the evidence and threatening of witnesses was never brought to the notice before this Court and the Hon’ble Judge who granted bail to the co-accused did not consider the said fact, therefore, I am not inclined to grant parity of the aforesaid co-accused Ram Krishan to the present applicant”. 8. 8. Rejection is not the rule of parity and the applicant has been bailed out by the concerned magistrate regarding above another F.I.R. When the bail of co-accused Ram Kishan was granted by another Bench, at that time this ground was in existence. It is immaterial whether this ground was taken or not but it shall be deemed that the same ground has also been taken and considered at the time of granting bail to co-accused Ram Kishan. After granting bail to co-accused Ram Kishan, no fresh ground has come on behalf of prosecution to reject the bail of present applicant. Therefore, the bail order dated 9.10.07 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 23245/07 relating to co-accused Ram Kishan shall be followed, hence bail application of applicant is liable to be allowed on the ground of parity. Enmity of civil litigation is admitted on behalf of prosecution in between the deceased and uncle of the applicant. 9. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on the ground of parity with co-accused Ram Kishan, the bail application of the present applicant is allowed. 10. Let the applicant named above in the above noted case be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned as subject to the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating first informant and other witnesses. 2. He shall cooperate with investigation and speedy trial. 3. He shall not indulge in criminal activities or commission of any offence after being released on bail and he shall appear at the concerned police station in the first week of every two months. ———