JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that co-accused has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and case of the present petitioner is not different than of the co-accused rather it stands on a better footing. A case was registered for offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') though soon before the death, there was no demand for dowry. There was a telephonic conversation between the complainant party and the deceased just before the occurrence wherein deceased made no complaint. There exists no evidence to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry. The petitioner is nowhere involved in the matter and Is unnecessarily implicated. It is clearly coming out from the postmortem report that there exist ligature marks on both the sides of the neck with defined size of those marks. 3. Learned counsel further submits that as and when co-accused is granted bail, parity should be maintained by the coordinate Bench for grant of bail. Relying upon the judgment in the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 62 , it is submitted that therein issue of parity has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Counsel has further referred the judgments of the cases of Shobha Ram v. State of U.P., reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 1371 ; Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226 ; lzharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 283 . 4. Or, the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application. Firstly referring to the photographs of the girl, it is projected that no ligature marks exist on the right side of the neck and same is the position of Inquest Report (Fard ''anchnama) wherein ligature marks have been shown on left side of neck, apart from a mark on trachea (tetuwa), hence, postmortem report becomes doubtful so as the cause of death. It is otherwise a case where death look place within a period of three years of marriage under suspicious circumstances, thus as per Evidence Act also, presumption goes against the accused. It is otherwise a case where death look place within a period of three years of marriage under suspicious circumstances, thus as per Evidence Act also, presumption goes against the accused. The demand of dowry was made by the accused, which is coming out from Investigation. Thus, looking to the overall circumstances, petitioner may not be granted bail. 5. It is further submitted that bail orders are not treated to be precedent, thus question of parity does not arise, more so when co-accused was a female, who was granted bail by the coordinate Bench, which may be pursuant to the provisions of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. However, aforesaid provisions are not attracted in the present matter, thus, claim of parity does not arise. It is not clear that similar arguments were raised before the coordinate Bench, more so the way offence has been given cause, needs to be considered. 6. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. While granting or accepting bail, it is not appropriate for the Court to make comments on merit because it may then affect the trial. It is, however, necessary to deal with the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner that co-accused having been granted bail, petitioner should be given same treatment. 8. Question of parity can be claimed or looked into, if the arguments raised are same. In the present matter, it is shown that not only death took place under suspicious circumstances, but it is further shown that photographs and Inquest Report (Fard Panchnama) do not show ligature marks on the right side of the neck. The aforesaid aspect was not raised before the Coordinate Bench, which otherwise is material. In the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated practice of commenting on the functioning of a coordinate Bench of the same Court. Therein bail granted was sought to be cancelled by the coordinate Bench, which otherwise is not the case herein. Each bail application has to be decided on its own arguments and mere grant of bail to the co-accused, the Court cannot be barred to look into the arguments, otherwise it will become a case where bail has to be granted without application of mind. 9. Each bail application has to be decided on its own arguments and mere grant of bail to the co-accused, the Court cannot be barred to look into the arguments, otherwise it will become a case where bail has to be granted without application of mind. 9. In the case of Harjeet Singh @ Seeta v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 368 : (2002) 1 SCC 469 , the facts were similar to that of Vikramjit Singh (supra). In the case of Surja v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 518 of 1986 decided on 5th of March, 1986) , this Court held that the bail of the co-accused was rejected by the High Court, however, subsequent bail was granted to other co-accused. Thus, in those circumstances, the Court came to the conclusion that the bail should be granted, though it had its own reservation on the merit of the case. Firstly, it is to be clarified that grant or rejection of the bails are not treated as precedent, as bail orders are passed based on the arguments of the parties, thus cannot be treated as precedent, more so no ratio is evolved generally. Question of parity comes when not only cases are similarly placed, but considerations of issue are also similar. In a case where the arguments are different, obviously appreciation of those, arguments would also be different and cannot be taken to be a case of parity in those circumstances. In fact, I am restrained to make comment on merit of this case as comment on merit may affect the trial, otherwise, detailed reasons can be given for denial of bail. 10. The question as to whether there was a demand of dowry soon before the occurrence is again an issue to be tried and decided, any opinion at this stage will affect the trial. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the bail application so preferred by the petitioner is rejected. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to raise all the issues while matter is heard for framing of charges. The trial Court is, therefore, expected to hear the matter for framing of the charges without any delay. On framing of the charges, petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh hail-application under the changed facts and circumstances, if any.Bail Rejected. *******