ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, and learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri A. V. Gupta for the respondent. 2. This is an application for regular bail. 3. The applicant was arrested, and is in Jail since 18-02-2007. The charge is under Section 302, 120(B), 147,148,201 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C., and r/w Section 4 and 25 of Arms Act. 4. That the victim Ramkishor Agrawal was assaulted by use of knives and swords. The injury is on the neck and he has succumbed to death. The injuries described in column No.17 of Post Mortem Report read as under : “1.Stab Injuries over :- .(a) (Lt) Infra mandibular region 3 cm below angle of mandible size 2.5 x 1q c.m. Depth –3cm. (b) (Lt) Side of neck 6cm inferolateral to injury No.(a) & 8cm below mastoid process. Size: 3 x 0.5 cm, depth 5 cm caused by object having sharp edges with painted end. Edges of wound clean cut & slit shaped. (c) Stab injuries to carotid artery corresponding with injuries mentioned under No.1 as (a) & (b). 2. Multiple contusion with abrasion (Rt) hand dorsal aspect & (Rt) ring finger of varying sizes; 3. Abrasion over (Rt) knee (jt) two in number (a) Upper: 1.5 x 1cm in size, (b) lower : 2x1cm in size. Both injuries 6 cm apart. 4. Abrasion with contusion (Lt) arm middle 1.3rd region lateral aspect; Size: 11 x 1 cm. 5. Old healed injuries over – (Rt) temporal region 6x3 cm (Rt) frontal region 1cm above (Rt) Eyebrow 3x.1.50 & 4cm, (Rt) frontal above this injury another injury size 1.5 x 1 cm” 5. The cause of death given in column No.22 reads as follows: “22. Opinion as to the cause probable cause of death : Death due to Hemorrhage shock due to stab injury to carotid artery.” The cause is referable to injury in item No.1 in Column No.17. 6. It is alleged that though in all 11 persons have been 7. The charge sheet was filed on 16-05-2007. 8. Three persons namely Motilal Shankar Shende, Vijay Suresh Waghmare and Sachin Krushnaji Neware have been released on bail on 26-10-2007 by the Sessions Court by order below Exh.52/4 of 2007 in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2007. SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BAIL PETITION. 9. The charge sheet was filed on 16-05-2007. 8. Three persons namely Motilal Shankar Shende, Vijay Suresh Waghmare and Sachin Krushnaji Neware have been released on bail on 26-10-2007 by the Sessions Court by order below Exh.52/4 of 2007 in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2007. SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BAIL PETITION. 9. One more accused namely Sanjay Yograj Bahekar has been released on bail by this Court by the order dated 17-9-2007 in Criminal Application No.2055 of 2007. 10. In support of the bail application, it has been urged that: named as the accused. (a) The applicant's case is resembling with the case of Sanjay Bahekar, his bail application is rejected on misconception that his case compares with Ravikumar Pashine, where plea for bail was rejected by this Court while deciding Criminal Application No.2055 of 2007. (b) Three accused released by the Sessions Court are the real offenders being assailants as is seen from the statements of witnesses, and the applicant has not played any role. (c) The evidence of witnesses namely Santosh Shivcharan Lilhare, Kailash Umrao Giri and Ramesh Gopal Chaudhary are seen, nothing is coming on record against the applicant except the allegation that he is named for reaching the weapons to the assailants, which too is not corroborated by any other evidence. (d) Though the applicant is named as a co-conspirer, there is no evidence on record to involve him. 11. He then urges that on facts if other accused whose involvement is apparently of grave nature are released on bail, the applicant's claim for bail is far superior and stands on better merit and not just on parity. 12. According to Mr. Madkholkar, rule of parity would be of prudence, however, when the accused having involvement of grave nature in comparison with other accused, who may be seeking bail, the rule of granting bail to such persons would be a superior rule of justice than the bare rule of prudence. 13. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the following Judgments: [1] (2001)1 Supreme Court Cases, 378, Saju Versus State of Kerala. [2] AIR 2002 Supreme Court 395, Dharmendra Chandulal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat. [3] AIR 2005 Supreme Court 716, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Learned Advocate Mr. Madkholkar does not dispute that there cannot be rigid rule guiding grant of bail. SAY OF PROSECUTION. 14. [2] AIR 2002 Supreme Court 395, Dharmendra Chandulal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat. [3] AIR 2005 Supreme Court 716, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Learned Advocate Mr. Madkholkar does not dispute that there cannot be rigid rule guiding grant of bail. SAY OF PROSECUTION. 14. The application is opposed urging inter alia that:- (a) Though this Court observed in the last paragraph of the said order about Ramesh Choudhary's having “barely seen Sanjay Bahekar and Gopikishan Mujaria (Present applicant) moving on motorcycle,” it would only mean that probably this Court's attention was not brought to the statement of Santosh Shivcharan Lilhare that Gopikishan (present applicant) and Sanjay Bahekar were together and thereafter, Gopikishan and Surendra loaded in the Maruti Van a bundle consisting of knives, swords and Gopikishan and Surendra boarded the Van and left, while Deepak and Sattu left by another vehicle following earlier towards Sakhritola. (b) It is also seen that in said case, this Court's attention was not brought to the statement made by Kailash Giri who in a categorical terms stated that he had seen Surrendra and Gopikishan in a white Maruti Van when they arrived at Devatola in between 7p.m. To 8 p.m., and they enquired with Kailash Giri, and wanted him to show him the house of Motilal, and also claimed that some articles or things were wrapped in a white bag. (c) It seems that may be because the statements of relevant witnesses were not shown to this Court. some slip attention of this Court has occurred while passing order dated 17-09-2007 in Criminal Application No.2055 of 2007, towards the statements of other witnesses. (d) Each bail application will have to be decided on own merit. (e) Rule of parity is a rule of prudence and discipline, but cannot be mechanically followed when record can be shown to be unfavourable to the applicant. (f) The application for cancellation of bail of these three accused persons (Motilal, Sachin and Vijay) is likely to be filed and a proposal for this purpose is submitted to the Government, which is pending for sanction. REASONS 15. This Court has also perused the order granting bail passed by the Sessions Court below Exh.60/4 in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2007, Sessions Court has found as follows:- “Prima facie, it do not show direct involvement of applicant in the crime at this stage. REASONS 15. This Court has also perused the order granting bail passed by the Sessions Court below Exh.60/4 in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2007, Sessions Court has found as follows:- “Prima facie, it do not show direct involvement of applicant in the crime at this stage. In the circumstances, I do not find any impediment in granting bail to him with conditions.” 16. The contents quoted above have created curiosity in the mind of the Court as to how such observations would be possible on the face of what has observed by this Court in various statements of the witnesses. Answer seems to be failure on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to advert to statements of witnesses accompanying chargesheet may be due to bulk thereof. 17. In the present case, the present applicant is indicated to be the brain behind the offence, and is allegedly a conspirer or co-conspirer. His claim of parity is based on the fact of grant of bail to three accused by the Sessions Court and grant of bail to Sanjay Bahekar by this Court. 18. As brought to the notice of this Court above, in para 14(a) and (b), the observations of this Court in the bail application No.2055/2007 appear to be due to failure to bring to the notice of this Court the statements of two witnesses Santosh Lilhare and Kailash Giri. 19. The observations of the Sessions Court, which are quoted in above para no. 15, cannot be approved by this Court in the light of the statements of three witnesses, which are referred to by this Court. 20. In the result, this Court is of the view that the case of the accused, who are named as assailants, have been granted bail, would nor distract this Court from conclusions enamating after perusal of record. 21. Mechanical application of rule of parity is not to be followed as urged. 22. The applicant does not have a case, which is comparable or considerable on parity, much less on the grounds superior than the doctrine of parity. 23. In the result, the application does not merit any indulgence and is rejected.