1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. According to the prosecution the incident took place on 27.8.2009 at 10.30 A.M. while prompt report was lodged the same day at 11.30 A.M. Eight accused persons are named in the F.I.R. first informant Mukesh has made a written report to the police station concerned with the contention that eight accused persons having a pre-plan armed with fire arms were ploughing with Tractor the ridge of his field. Rakesh and Satya Narayan the brothers of the informant forbade them whereupon in prosecution of their common object of them all they made intermittent gun firing upon both of them. Rakesh sustained fire arm injury on his chest and leg. He received instantaneous death at spot. Satya Narain sustained fire arm injury in his fore-head and shoulder who died during medical treatment in the hospital. Several persons including informant, Kanhaiya, Smt. Maya Devi, Rajni and Pappu have witnessed the incident. The post mortem examination report fully supports the prosecution case. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that 8 persons have fired the fire arms but only two persons have been done to death. The number of wounds of entry on the person of both the deceased do not correspond to the number of firings made by all the 8 accused and moreover under similar circumstances co-accused Pawan Kumar has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2011 and on that basis another accused Om Prakash @ Ompal , Kishan Singh and Ramu have subsequently been bailed out by the same Bench. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants besides arguing on merit of the case has mainly insisted on following two grounds :- Firstly; that the applicants are in jail since 20.10.2009 and on the ground of their long period of incarceration in jail they are entitled to bail because due to delay in trial their fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed and Secondly; that since accused Pawan Kumar, Om Prakash alias Om Pal, Kishan Singh and Ramu have earlier been granted bail under similar circumstances by another Bench of this Court, therefore the applicants deserve bail as a matter of right on the ground of parity to maintain consistency in judicial orders. 5. 5. Learned A.G.A. has repelled the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and has argued that co-accused Pawan Kumar and three others have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on the ground that the contention of prosecution that the field was belonging to the informant or the other party is yet to be ascertained by cogent evidence. According to him, there was no dispute in between the parties regarding any field rather the case of the prosecution is that accused persons were dismantling the ridge of the field of informant by ploughing it with tractor whereupon both the deceased who are real brothers inter-se who were cutting fodder there in their field forbade them not to dismantal the same whereupon they started indiscriminate firing upon them who sustained injuries and first informant and other prosecution witnesses of his family who were already at their house situated in the same field and lying at a distance of 40-50 meter from the spot witnessed the incident. It is not the case of accused that they exercised their right of private defence or ridge in question belonged to them or there was any dispute in between the parties regarding the ownership of the ridge. He further contended that even if there was any dispute on the point of ridge they were not justified in law to fire at and cause fatal injuries to both the unarmed deceased. Moreover accused applicants are neither pleading their right of private defence of person or property nor the surrounding circumstances justify their firings on both the injured/ deceased. Even the learned counsel for the applicants does not argue that the applicants and others fired in exercise of their right of private defence of person or property rather applicants have denied to have their perpetration into the crime. He has challenged the entire incident. F.I.R. is prompt which has been lodged on the day of incident itself within an hour after covering the distance of about 12 Km. from the scene of incident to the police station concerned. All the accused including the applicants are named accused. Specific weapons and common role of firing have been made against them all which is supported by post mortem examination report of both the deceased. It is a broad day light incident. from the scene of incident to the police station concerned. All the accused including the applicants are named accused. Specific weapons and common role of firing have been made against them all which is supported by post mortem examination report of both the deceased. It is a broad day light incident. The mode and manner of incident and assault do not entitle the applicants to bail and lastly; he submitted that long incarceration of accused in jail and principle of parity is not a ground to admit the applicants to bail. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Pramod Kumar Saxena Versus Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115 that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the case of Salim Vs. State of U.P. 2002 (45) ACC 1156 (HC) this Court has held that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail. In the case of Zubair Versus State of U.P. 2005 (52) ACC 205 this Court observed that there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co-accused has been granted bail. 8. The matter of granting bail on the ground of parity has been considered in several decision of this Court. The Full Bench in Sundar Lal Vs. State of UP. 1983 (20) ACC 140 did not accept the proposition. 9. The Hon'ble M.Katju, J., as his lordship then was, declined to grant bail on the ground of parity and referred the matter to the larger Bench in Chander @ Chandra Versus State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 311. The matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench. While deciding the said reference the Division Bench held that :- " A Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even when the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant facts essential for granting bail." 10. It is further held therein that if bail has been granted in flagrant violation of well settled principles, the order granting bail would not be in accordance with law. Such order can never form the basis for a claim founded on parity. It was further held therein that :- " The grant of bail is not a mechanical act and principle of consistency cannot be extended to repeating a wrong order. If the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles, it will be open to the Judge to reject the bail application of the applicants before him as no judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to maintain consistency. " 11. In Special Leave Petition No. 4059 of 2000 Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux Singh and another, decided on 12.3.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court strongly denounced the order of the High Court granting bail to the co-accused on the ground of parity in a heinous offence and while cancelling the bail granted by the High Court it observed that :- " The High Court on being moved, has considered the application for bail and without bearing in mind the relevant materials on record as well as the gravity of offence released the accused-respondents on bail, since the co-accused, who had been ascribed similar role, had been granted bail earlier." 12. The Apex Court in the aforesaid law report has further observed :- " Suffice it to say that for a serious charge where three murders have been committed in broad day light, the High Court has not applied its mind to the relevant materials, and merely because some of the co-accused, whom similar role has been ascribed, have been released on bail earlier, have granted bail to the present accused respondents. It is true that State normally should have moved this Court against the order in question, but at the same time the power of this Court cannot be fettered merely because the State has not moved, particularly in a case like this, where our conscience is totally shocked to see the manner in which the High Court has exercised its power for release on bail of the accused respondents. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may prejudice the accused in trial. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may prejudice the accused in trial. But we have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from gross illegality and is an order on total non-application of mind and the judgment of this Court referred to earlier analysing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 can not be of any use as we are not exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr.P.C. " 13. Recently, this Court in Shahnawaz @ Shanu Vs. State of U.P. 2009, (66) ACC 189, has refused to grant bail to the applicant on the principles of parity. 14. It is a day light double murder which is brutal one. Two innocent persons have lost their lives. They were unarmed. All the accused persons including the applicants had made a cool calculated pre-arranged plan and that is why all of them were wielding fire arms weapons with intention to commit the murder of both the deceased. They have made intermittent firings on them as a result of which they received fire arm injuries on their vital parts of body and succumbed to their injuries. The high handedness of the accused applicants, mode and manner in which the incident took place, the prompt F.I.R., naming the applicants therein with specific weapon and specific role assigned to them, they do not deserve bail because firing made by the applicants was not justified in any way and parity cannot be the sole ground for bail. Likewise long detention in jail by itself is not a ground for bail. 15. Considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, my judicial conscience does not permit me to enlarge the accused applicants on bail merely to maintain consistency. However, it is made clear whether or not the parity is to be extended to co-accused is a question of fact which needs to be examined in each and every case independently keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and no straight jacket formula or hard and fast rule can be laid in this regard. 16. No case for bail is made out. Bail is refused. Application for bail stands rejected.