Judgment B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. with a prayer to release the petitioner on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.21/19 of 2011, now pending in the Court of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Puri corresponding to G.R. Case No.1242 of 2007 arising out of Puri Town P.S. Case No.250 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302/294/34, I.P.C. read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ajaya Kumar Sarangi @ Hati was killed by gun shot on 30.08.2007 at 9.30 P.M. at Lions’ Gate of Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri by the petitioner and other accomplices. The informant, who is the elder brother of the deceased, immediately, shifted the deceased to Puri Hospital in police mobile van for medical treatment and due to the critical condition, the victim was referred to S.C.B., Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. On the way to Cuttack, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Then the informant-Uttam Kumar Sarangi lodged an FIR and after investigation charge sheet was submitted showing the petitioner as absconder and subsequently, he was produced before the court in custody on the strength of NBW(A). 4. Application for bail filed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. before the Ad hoc Additional Session Judge, FTC, Puri was rejected on the ground that there is prima facie material against the accused, who is alleged to have been involved in a heinous crime like murder and as many as seven witnesses were already examined by the prosecution by the date of passing the order. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Puri rejected the said application. 5. Mr. T.P. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Sagarpadia, P.S. Basali Sahi, Dist: Puri (Lokanath Road) and he has got some moveable and immovable properties in that locality. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there would be no chance of his absconding and tampering the evidence. Referring to the statement of Sambhu Singh, S.I., it was submitted that the petitioner has not opened fire at the deceased. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there would be no chance of his absconding and tampering the evidence. Referring to the statement of Sambhu Singh, S.I., it was submitted that the petitioner has not opened fire at the deceased. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a Memo stating therein that other co-accused persons, namely, Madhab Chandra Khuntia, Akhi @ Akshaya Kumar Mohapatra, Nari @ Narasingh Mohapatra and Gangadhar Moharana have already been released on bail. Along with memo he has enclosed copies of bail orders of above co-accused persons. Placing reliance upon the bail orders enclosed with the Memo directing release of above named four accused persons, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the petitioner may be released on bail on the ground of parity. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is a prime accused in this case. He is not similarly situated with that of the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail. It is further submitted that by 06.11.2012, seven witnesses were examined. Referring to the statement of Madhab Mohapatra, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, learned State counsel submitted that the present petitioner had fired at the deceased and as per the medical report the deceased died because of gun-shot. Further, referring to the statement of the informant-Uttam Kumar Sarangi, it is submitted that in dying declaration the deceased stated that the present petitioner had opened the gun and fired at him. The statement of Kishore Chandra Panda and Deva Ray reveals that they identified the petitioner who was running away from the place of occurrence. 7. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner has made out a case for regular bail on the ground of parity. 8. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “32. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. 8. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “32. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as (a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted.” 9. Now the question arises as to whether on the basis of the orders passed by this Court in which four co-accused persons have been released on bail, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the plea of parity. In first bail order dated 08.05.2008 passed in BLAPL No.2741 of 2008 granting bail to one of the accused namely, Nari @ Narasingh Mohapatra, the above aspects have not been highlighted. One of the grounds for granting bail to the other co-accused persons in subsequent order dated 05.11.2008 passed in BLAPL No.12759 of 2008, order dated 26.07.2010 in BLAPL No.10029 of 2010 and order dated 14.02.2011 in BLAPL No.23128 of 2010 is that co-accused has already been released on bail in the meantime. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, accusations are serious in nature, i.e., the deceased was killed by gunshot near Lions’ Gate of Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, accusations are serious in nature, i.e., the deceased was killed by gunshot near Lions’ Gate of Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court. 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 Supreme 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “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. 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. 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 analyzing the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 439 cannot be of any use as we are not exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 439 Cr. P.C.” 11. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Salim Vrs. P.C.” 11. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Salim Vrs. State of UP, 2003 ALL LJ 625 has held 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 irrespective of the gravity of offence. 12. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Chander alias Chandra vs. State of U.P., 1998 CRI.L.J. 2374, held as under: “21. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows: 1. If the order granting bail to an accused is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis for granting bail to a co-accused on the ground of parity. 2. A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where 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 factors essential for granting bail.” 13. Needless to say that the law of parity is a desirable rule. However, where the allegations of heinous crime are serious in nature against the accused and not against co-accused the accused cannot claim parity with that of the co-accused in the matter of bail. Thus, where two accused persons are not identically placed reliance on bail of one accused does not entitle the other co-accused to be released on bail. The ground of parity is not the compelling reason for granting bail. 14. In view of the above, parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail; it is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. The orders granting or refusing bail are orders of interlocutory nature. The Court has to satisfy itself on consideration of materials placed that there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. The discretion in passing interim orders should be exercised judicially. Rule of parity is not applicable in all the cases. Each case for bail has to be considered on its own merit. 15. Keeping in mind the gravity of offence, materials available on record and the above principles of law, now I have to consider the present petition for grant of bail. 16. Rule of parity is not applicable in all the cases. Each case for bail has to be considered on its own merit. 15. Keeping in mind the gravity of offence, materials available on record and the above principles of law, now I have to consider the present petition for grant of bail. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the bail order granted to the co-accused namely, Nari @ Narasingh Mohapatra, who has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2008 in BLAPL No.2741 of 2008. Perusal of the said order reveals that considering the submission of the parties and the period of the petitioner’s detention in jail bail has been granted to the petitioner Nari @ Narasingh Mohapatra. Vide order dated 05.11.2008 in BLAPL No.12759 of 2008, another co-accused namely, Gangadhar Moharana was granted bail on the ground of parity with that of the co-accused namely, Nari @ Narasingh Mohapatra, who was granted bail by this Court on 08.05.2008 in BLAPL No.2741 of 2008, and another co-accused namely, Debendra Kumar Nayak, who was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Puri on 26.02.2008 in B.A. No.106 of 2008. Co-accused Madhab Khuntia has been released on bail vide order dated 26.07.2010 in BLAPL No.10029 of 2010 taking into consideration the submission of petitioner’s counsel that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had fired at the deceased and that bail has been granted to the co-accused persons as well as the period of his under trial detention. Another co-accused namely, Akshaya Kumar Mohapatra was granted bail by this Court vide BLAPL No.23128 of 2010 on the ground that in the dying declaration the said petitioner has not been implicated and that the co-accused namely, Madhab Chandra Khuntia has been released on bail. 17. The ground on which bail has been granted to above four co-accused persons clearly shows that the present petitioner is not on the similar footing. Evidence of the eyewitness namely, Madhab Mohapatra reveals that the petitioner had fired at the deceased. Dying declaration made before the informant further reveals that the petitioner had fired at the deceased. Other witnesses in their statements stated that they saw the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence. 18. Evidence of the eyewitness namely, Madhab Mohapatra reveals that the petitioner had fired at the deceased. Dying declaration made before the informant further reveals that the petitioner had fired at the deceased. Other witnesses in their statements stated that they saw the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not on the similar footing with that of the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail. By the time, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner, seven witnesses had already been examined. 19. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the BLAPL is rejected. 20. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case as early as possible keeping in mind the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C. avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Bail petition rejected.