Judgment S.K. Gangele, J;- 1. The applicant has filed this repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. He has been arrested vide Crime No. 04 of 2012 registered against him at police station Aron, District Gwalior for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 336, 302 and 325/34 of IPC. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06-08-2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3612 of 2012. In the aforesaid order, this Court has made the following observations :- The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant Kallu alias Dharmendra had dashed a motor bike to Rachna thereafter the brother of Rachna namely Jitendra went to the house of Kallu's brother namely Naresh and told him about the incident, on which, Naresh used abusive language and fired a gunshot in the air. Thereafter, the complainant along with his mother Panobai and sister Rachna went to the police station to lodge an FIR against the accused person, but on the way Suresh, Kallu and Damodar armed with lathi had stopped and beaten them, due to which they have suffered severe injuries. Thereafter, they were admitted in the hospital. Subsequently, the deceased Panobai was discharged from the hospital and after two days she was died. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no head injury to the deceased and deceased was died after sometime, hence the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The allegation against the applicant is that he had beaten the deceased by lathi. In the postmortem of the deceased following injuries were found:- (1) Contusion present on anterior aspect of Rt arm 22 cm below the tip of Rt shoulder size 3x3.5 cm. Bluish Brown in colour. (2) Abrasion present on Rt elbow size 1x1 cm black in colour. (3) Contusion present on Rt wrist joint underneath wrist joint fracture. Contusion bluish brown in colour. (4) Contusion preset on 6 cm above Rt wrist joint size 6x4 cm. Bluish Brown in colour under neath forearm bone fracture. (5) Abrasion present on Rt knee size 1x1 cm black in colour. (6) Contusion present on 1 cm below the Rt knee size 4x4 cm. Bluish brown in colour. (7) Abrasion present on above 8 cm Lt ankle joint size 2x1 cm black in colour. Bluish Brown in colour under neath forearm bone fracture. (5) Abrasion present on Rt knee size 1x1 cm black in colour. (6) Contusion present on 1 cm below the Rt knee size 4x4 cm. Bluish brown in colour. (7) Abrasion present on above 8 cm Lt ankle joint size 2x1 cm black in colour. (8) Rail pattern contusion present anterior lateral part of Lt thigh oblique in shape upper and laterally size 20x5 cm Bluish brown in colour. (9) Rail Pattern contusion present on left wrist joint of Dorsum aspect 2 cm above wrist joint of Lt hand bluish brown in colour underneath pore arm bone fracture. (10) Contusion present on 4 cm below the Lt elbow size 7x3 cm bluish brown in colour. (11) Contusion present on Scapular region of Lt side size 16x15 cm bluish brown in colour. (12) Contusion present on upper part of chest of Rt Side size 13/9 cm bluish brown in colour. The doctor has opined that the nature of injuries were homicidal and deceased was died due to head injury. The deceased was admitted in the hospital and as per the record of the hospital there was a head injury to the deceased. Rachna was also admitted in the hospital and there was also injury over the body of Rachna. However, subsequently it was found that there was no bone injury. Jitendra was also admitted in the hospital and he had also received injuries. As per the x-ray report, fracture was seen at proximal 1/3rd of shaft of left ulna. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. Looking to the allegations and the medical report and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that he had inflicted injury by lathi when the complainant had been going to lodge a report and the report was lodged by the deceased complainant herself, no case is made out for grant of bail. The application is rejected. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has submitted that subsequently other accused persons, namely, Suresh Singh Rawat, Damodar Rawat and Mahendra Singh Rawat have been admitted to bail by this Court. The application is rejected. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has submitted that subsequently other accused persons, namely, Suresh Singh Rawat, Damodar Rawat and Mahendra Singh Rawat have been admitted to bail by this Court. Copies of the orders [dated 13/09/2012, 05/09/2012 06/09/2012] passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4454 of 2012, M.Cr.C. No. 4249 of 2012 and M.Cr.C. No. 5135 of 2012 have been produced by learned Senior Counsel for perusal. Hence, learned Senior Counsel prayed that on the ground of parity, the present applicant be also admitted to bail. 3. I have perused the orders passed by this Court in regard to other co-accused persons who have been admitted to bail. 4. The following observations have been made by the Court in admitting the bail to other accused, namely, Suresh Singh Rawat. Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 26.03.2012 and the prosecution story discloses that the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted deceased Panobai and according to the postmortem report, she died due to head injuries, but none of the 12 injuries, described in the postmortem report as ante-mortem injuries, are head injuries and therefore the prosecution story creates a doubt and that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and the possibility of the early conclusion of the trial is bleak and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 5. From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the Court has granted bail to other co-accused persons on the ground that in the post mortem report, it is mentioned that the deceased was died due to head injuries, however, there was no head injury over the person of the deceased. 6. I have perused the Case Diary and the post mortem report of the deceased. In the post mortem report, there is an injury mentioned over the head of the deceased. It means that there was an injury of scalp ecchymosed on left temporal region size 8 x 6 cm present on the person of the deceased. 7. Butterworths Medical Dictionary (2nd Edition) prescribes "ecchymosis" which is as under:- Ecchymosis (ek e mo sis) (pl. ecchymoses) 1.A swollen livid or blue-black spot on the skin caused by effusion of blood into the areolar tissue as the result of a contusion. 7. Butterworths Medical Dictionary (2nd Edition) prescribes "ecchymosis" which is as under:- Ecchymosis (ek e mo sis) (pl. ecchymoses) 1.A swollen livid or blue-black spot on the skin caused by effusion of blood into the areolar tissue as the result of a contusion. 2. An extravasation of blood. Cadaveric ecchymoses. Post-mortem stains. H- shaped ecchymosis. That seen in rupture of the tendo calcaneus [Gk ek, chymos juice.] 8. Ecchymosis is the result of a contusion. There is an evidence that the head injury was caused by 'lathi'. There is only evidence that the present applicant had prevented the deceased and other family members of the deceased from lodging the report at the police station and inflicted injuries to them. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dileep Khare Vs. State of M.P. [M.Cr.C. No. 7230/2011] by answering a reference has held as under in regard to necessity to consider the order of refusal or granting bail to another co- accused and also the effect of the order and answered the reference accordingly :- 15. In the aforesaid background, the format prescribed under Chapter 10 of Rule 54 of the Rules of 2008 in filing the application for bail before the High Court is to be considered. In our opinion, it is necessary to mention the fact in regard to fate of the bail application/applications of another co-accused so the judge while considering the bail application of another co-accused can take into consideration the fact in order to avoid the conflicting orders on the same subject because it is not in the interest of justice that the conflicting orders be passed in the same case. It would be against the credibility of the Institution and it would also create an adverse impression in the minds of the litigants. The arguments advanced at the bar that it is not possible for an accused arrested in a criminal case to find out that whether other co-accused have filed the bail application or application could not be accepted because registry has a computerized filing system and from computer or Internet it can easily be find out that whether other co-accused have filed the bail applications or not and whether it was rejected or not. It is common knowledge that if any co-accused is enlarged on bail, the other accused person/s know the fact immediately. 16. It is common knowledge that if any co-accused is enlarged on bail, the other accused person/s know the fact immediately. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) has clearly observed that there may be unanimity in the orders of the courts passed in the same set of facts and this principle is in consonance with the legal principle of law that on the same set of facts there would not be divergent views of the courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that a litigant be not permitted to select a court depending upon whether the court is of his liking or not. In this background in our opinion, it is necessary for the judge, who is deciding the subsequent bail application of a co accused to consider the fact that earlier bail application of another co-accused on similar set of facts had been rejected by another Bench. This fact is not a binding precedent on the court but atleast it is obligatory on the part of the court to consider the aforesaid fact. So an inference can be drawn from the order of the court that the learned Judge while deciding the bail application has applied its mind to all the relevant circumstances and evidence of the case as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments quoted above in the order. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied on the Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanha Vs. State of U.P. Reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 938. In the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that the fact of rejection of earlier application of bail of another co-accused could not be considered in the matter of considering the bail application of another co-accused on the ground that the accused whose bail application is being considered by the court had no opportunity to put forward his case before the court which had refused the applicant of another co-accused. The judgment of Allahabad High Court is distinguishable on the facts of the case that in our High Court specific rules have been framed by the High Court and format has been prescribed in regard to filing of the bail applications and as per the format, it is necessary for the accused to mention the fact in regard to status and fate of bail application (s) of other co-accused person(s) and that has been consciously added in order to bring into notice to the court about the order which has been passed in the case of another co-accused and if there is no obligation on the part of the court to consider the aforesaid fact while granting the bail to other co accused, it would be an empty formality and that would be against the intention of the Rules of 2008. 17. It is well settled principle of law that only those orders in which the relevant facts have been considered by the court could be binding on another Bench. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad and another reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1669 has held as under about the aforesaid principle: There is a need to indicate in the order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non application of mind. Though a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The factors which the court must consider among other circumstances before granting bail are (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 18. 18. In our opinion, the same principle can be applied by the court while deciding the application of bail of an accused when the co accused has been granted the benefit of bail. Normally, if the order has been passed after considering all the relevant facts as mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and quoted above in this order by the court, then certainly another court is bound to grant same benefit to another co-accused whose case is similarly situated on the ground of parity. However, if those facts have not been considered by the court as mentioned by the Division Bench of this Court in 1989 JLJ 323 , then the court can refuse to grant benefit to the co-accused after recording reasons. On the basis of the above discussions, we answer the reference accordingly :- 1. That the provisions made under Rule 57 Chapter X and Format 14, mentioning of particulars of bail applications of other co-accused persons, is not a mere formality. Those provisions have been made to maintain harmony in deciding similar bail applications. It is necessary to mention the facts in application filed under Section 328, 439 of Cr.P.C. as per rules. 2. That it is necessary for another Bench to consider the fact that the bail application of another co-accused similarly situated has been rejected earlier, but the order of rejection is not binding on the court. However, the court has to take into consideration the aforesaid fact and it would be obligatory on the court to mention the aforesaid fact in the order. 3. That if the order passed by the court of granting bail to an accused has been passed without considering the evidence and other facts of the case as mentioned above in the order, then it would be necessary for another Bench to grant benefit of bail to another co - accused on the grant of parity and the court can reject the application after recording adequate reasons or matter can be referred for consideration to the larger bench in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 2008. We answer the reference accordingly. In the present case, the another Bench while admitting the other accused persons on bail, did not consider the fact of refusal of bail to the present applicant. We answer the reference accordingly. In the present case, the another Bench while admitting the other accused persons on bail, did not consider the fact of refusal of bail to the present applicant. Apart from this, the observation that there was no head injury on the person of the deceased, is contrary to the post mortem report. Hence, in my opinion, no case is made out for grant of bail to the present applicant. The application is hereby dismissed.