JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. All the three bail applications have been arising out of same Case Crime Number and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard Sri. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Archana Hans and Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused applicants Wasi Ahmad and Sabir, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant Zaabir Hussain, Shri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the intervenor, Sri. Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. These bail applications have been given by the accused applicants Wasi Ahmad, Sabir and Zaabir Hussain in Criminal Case No. 5100 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 634 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC, PS - Dhoomanganj, District - Allahabad (Prayagraj). 4. Submission of the learned Senior Advocate/Counsel for the applicants is that the accused applicants are in jail from more than 22 months and charge-sheet has already been filed against the accused applicants and 4 more accused persons under aforesaid sections. Further submission is that, in respect of the incident, informant Abid lodged an FIR making allegation that on 25.09.2015 at 8:30 PM the incident took place and the FIR has been lodged at 9:30 PM on the same date. The accused applicants with other four are named accused persons in the FIR. Out of 7 accused, 3 accused persons have given these bail applications and the others are still absconding. The allegation is that the deceased Alkana and her driver Surjeet were going and Surjeet was driving the Fortuner Car to take her to her village. Accused persons Sabir, Wasi Ahamad, Maqsood Ahamad, Kammu, Jabir, Tauseef and Intekhab Alam came and opened fire by their rifles and killed them. The informant Abid who was going in another car behind the car of the deceased with Asif, Munna and Farhan, stopped and stepped down from his car, concealed themselves in the nearby field and saw the whole incident in the headlights of the car. Hearing the sound of firing, nearby villagers reached there raising their voice, whereupon the accused persons, threatening and firing, escaped from the place. Earlier also they had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Hearing the sound of firing, nearby villagers reached there raising their voice, whereupon the accused persons, threatening and firing, escaped from the place. Earlier also they had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. The matter was investigated by police and charge-sheet was submitted on 07.01.2016 on which cognizance was also taken by the court below on 03.05.2016. 5. One Asiya Begam gave application dated 18.06.2016, the IG, UP, finding certain shortcomings in the investigation, issued a letter to SSP, Allahabad indicating certain points which were needed to be further investigated, whereupon, on 21.07.2016, SSP Allahabad directed for further investigation by Crime Branch. During the further investigation, one Julficar @ Tota was arrested who made confessional statement giving details of the incident and from him one pistol was also recovered. After further investigation, charge-sheet dated 16.11.2017 was submitted against accused Akbar alone in which it was mentioned that investigation is continuing. Subsequently on 01.01.2018, an another charge-sheet against Abid, Mazid, Azaz, Javed, Abubakar, Sheru, Munna, Farhan, Aashif, Pappu and Faisal was filed. 6. Submission of the learned Senior counsel is that in the subsequently filed charge-sheet, newly incorporated accused persons such as Azaz Akhtar, Javed, Munne @ Munna, Mazid, Pappu @ Imtiyaz, Abu Bakar, Faisal, Akbar, Sheru, Asif, Julficar @ Tota have been granted bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court and some of the bail orders are enclosed with the bail applications. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that by letter dated 11.12.2015, SSP, Allahabad, in response to a government letter dated 10.11.2015, conveyed no objection and recommended for transfer to and investigation by CBCID indicating that Inspector Mahendra Singh Dev was investigating into the offence and he was in agreement with the opinion of the IO. It is not clear whether the investigation was transferred to CBCID or not, as the charge-sheet dated 7.1.2016 was submitted by Inspector Mahendra Singh Dev. Subsequently, when further investigation by Crime Branch was directed by SSP vide order dated 21.7.2016, the charge-sheet was already filed and cognizance by the court below was taken. 7. The Crime Branch started further investigation, reconstructed the crime scene in presence and on saying of the first informant and the result was found contrary to the FIR version. Subsequently, when further investigation by Crime Branch was directed by SSP vide order dated 21.7.2016, the charge-sheet was already filed and cognizance by the court below was taken. 7. The Crime Branch started further investigation, reconstructed the crime scene in presence and on saying of the first informant and the result was found contrary to the FIR version. It has also been submitted that in view of the site map, when the eyewitness saw the accused applicants committing the offence, they were 40 feets away from the place and they further went to 20 feets away in the field. The incident took place in the night, and without disclosing the source of light, it cannot be believed that they saw the accused persons and identified them. Moreover, during investigation, although, sign and damage caused to the car by bullet shot was found, yet it could not be shown that any bullet got penetrated into the car and, therefore, the manner of assault is highly doubtful. It has been also submitted that the widow of the deceased Surjeet moved to the High Court for transferring the investigation to the CBI but the prayer was not accepted by the High Court and a simple direction was passed for fair investigation. It has been also submitted that the SSP, Allahabad ordered for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and that order was never challenged. The charge-sheet was submitted against the informant and others on the basis of statement of the widow and other witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer. He submits that the incident is honour killing as both the deceased were in relationship. It has been also submitted that the subsequently chargesheeted accused persons are active members of the gang of Ateeq and they have long criminal history. The accused applicants were implicated and charge-sheeted at the instance of the said Mafia don who happened to be very influential, politically and otherwise. 8. It has been also submitted that the ballistic report shows that different bores of weapon were used in causing fire arm injuries and blackening was present whereas it has been no where stated that the accused persons fired from a close range. 8. It has been also submitted that the ballistic report shows that different bores of weapon were used in causing fire arm injuries and blackening was present whereas it has been no where stated that the accused persons fired from a close range. It has been also submitted that the location of the applicants at the relevant time was not found around the location of crime in view of the CDR collected by the IO and the accused persons whose locations were found near the spot and from whom weapon of assault was recovered have already been granted bail. Further submission is that a report dated 17.11.2017 was submitted to CJM by SO, Dhoomanganj Nagesh Kumar Singh and he has mentioned that the named accused persons are not wanted in the case and in further investigation, sufficient evidence has been found against informant Abid and others. Accused applicant Wasi has no criminal history and other two against whom criminal history has been shown have been released on bail in all those cases. The other four accused persons are still absconding and the applicants are in jail from the last about two years. The case is not committed to sessions and there is no possibility of trial to commence and dispose of in near future. The investigation has been completed by the Officers of Crime Branch on the basis of order passed by Superintendent of Police and charge-sheet has been submitted against the informant and others and they have been released on bail. Therefore, on the basis of parity also, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 9. Learned GA, learned counsel for the informant and learned Senior Advocate for the intervener have vehemently opposed the bail applications and have submitted that prompt and named FIR has been lodged. It is a high profile well planned murder case in which two persons have lost their life in indiscriminate firing and in such cases liberal approach cannot be adopted in granting bail. Submission of learned Senior Advocate is that the subsequent investigation is not legal as the charge-sheet filed against the accused applicants was earlier in time and cognizance was already taken by court below and without obtaining any order from the concerned court for further investigation, no further investigation could be conducted. Submission of learned Senior Advocate is that the subsequent investigation is not legal as the charge-sheet filed against the accused applicants was earlier in time and cognizance was already taken by court below and without obtaining any order from the concerned court for further investigation, no further investigation could be conducted. He has submitted that the second set accused persons have been falsely implicated because of the influence of Mafia don Ateeq. The second submission is that the accused applicants who are three in numbers have their long criminal history. Further submission is that in the incident Alkama died and she sustained 17 gun shot injuries whereas Surjeet also died and he had sustained 13 gun shot injuries and it indicates how horrendously the deceased persons were killed and the accused persons ensured the death by indiscriminate firing. Further submission is that the accused applicants have tendency of running away from judicial process as the charge-sheet was submitted after concluding the investigation against them in absconding and they remained absconding for almost three years and still the remaining 4 accused persons who have been charge-sheeted have not put in their appearance and are still absconding, despite the fact that the accused persons filed miscellaneous applications under sections 482 Cr.P.C. and Miscellaneous Application No. 11516 of 2018 filed by Maqsood Ahamad and Others was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2018, Miscellaneous Application No. 28407 of 2018 filed by Tausif and another was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2018 and Miscellaneous Application No. 13850 of 2019 filed by Qammo (Qamrul Hasan) was dismissed vide order dated 11.4.2019. Therefore, it has been submitted that where the accused applicants and their associates have tendency of tampering with the judicial process by absconding, in such case the bail should not be granted. In respect of parity, it has been submitted that the accused persons whose names have been mentioned in the subsequent charge-sheet have been granted bail because of peculiar situation as they were not named in the FIR and one of them was the first informant. Charge-sheet was already filed against the accused applicants and their associates much prior to the direction for further investigation. They are named in the FIR which was lodged very promptly and therefore, it has been submitted that the prayer of parity will not come to help such accused persons. 10. Charge-sheet was already filed against the accused applicants and their associates much prior to the direction for further investigation. They are named in the FIR which was lodged very promptly and therefore, it has been submitted that the prayer of parity will not come to help such accused persons. 10. Upon hearing the submissions made from both sides and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the arguments, it is clear that the accused applicants have laid emphasis, firstly, on parity as subsequently charge-sheeted accused persons for the aforesaid offences have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The law of parity is a principle of equality and it requires that identically placed accused should be given benefit of parity in releasing on bail. It is settled law that parity is one of the consideration in allowing bail application but on the ground of parity alone, an accused cannot be released on bail, nor there can be such hard and fast rule. Bail jurisdiction is not exercised mechanically and each case has to be considered on its own factual matrix keeping in view the gravity of offence, the manner of the commission of the offence, its impact on society and the antecedent of the individual accused. Thus nature of the offence and its gravity and seriousness ; character of the evidence; circumstances peculiar to the accused; likelihood of the accused fleeing from judicial process; the impact of release on the witnesses, its impact on the society and likelihood of his tampering are relevant considerations in bail matters. For a serious charge where two murders have been committed by indiscriminate firing; eyewitnesses have seen the incident and prompt and named FIR has been lodged; merely because some accused persons, against whom charge-sheets have been filed after further investigation which took place after filing of charge-sheet against the present accused applicants and who were not named in FIR, have been granted bail earlier, the present accused applicants cannot get benefit of the principle of parity. The case of the accused applicants is certainly different if considered in its entirety. Even this cannot be a ground for releasing them on bail that they are in jail and there is no possibility of trial being concluded very soon. Two of the accused applicants have a long criminal history also. The case of the accused applicants is certainly different if considered in its entirety. Even this cannot be a ground for releasing them on bail that they are in jail and there is no possibility of trial being concluded very soon. Two of the accused applicants have a long criminal history also. The interesting part is that both the sides claim in writing against each other that they have backing of Mafia don Ateeq. 11. The learned Senior Advocate for the intervener has argued that when charge-sheet was already filed and cognizance was taken by court below, there was no occasion for the police authorities to direct for further investigation without approval of court below and further investigation and filing of charge-sheet against the informant side is illegal. This is not a fact which can be considered at present at the time of disposal of the bail application. Moreover, when the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the court below, this argument has lost its significance. Similarly, the argument of the learned Senior Advocate and learned counsel for the applicants with regards to manner of assault, weapon used and no possibility of witnesses and informant having seen the incident from distance in the night and the differences in view of ballistic and forensic reports, cannot be looked into thoroughly and in microscopic details during disposal of bail application. That is an area which can only be examined by the trial court. Again, the argument that the case of the applicants is on much better footing as the CDR shows the presence at relevant time around spot and murder weapons have been recovered from concealed places from the accused persons who have been granted bail and nothing incriminatory has been recovered the applicants, this cannot be determined at this stage. It is an intricate area to be examined during trial. 12. The accused applicants are named in FIR which has been lodged promptly. In the incident, two persons, one driver and other sitting on back seat sustained firearm injuries in indiscriminate firing and died. The sign of gunshots have been found on the front, bonnet, glass and door and so far as the argument that no bullet was found having penetrated inside to hit the deceased persons is concerned, there is nothing on record in which it has been said that no bullet penetrated inside the car. The sign of gunshots have been found on the front, bonnet, glass and door and so far as the argument that no bullet was found having penetrated inside to hit the deceased persons is concerned, there is nothing on record in which it has been said that no bullet penetrated inside the car. This is an aspect on which a finding at this stage is neither warranted nor can be given. 13. The firearm injuries caused to the deceased persons also show that it was ensured that, in all certainty, the death must result by indiscriminate firing. A glance at the post-mortem report reveals this fact. Deceased Alkana sustained 17 injuries which include several firearm entry and exit wound. From the typed copy of post-mortem report which has been filed by the applicants shows following injuries on the dead-body: 1. Cutting injury seen in right side hand medial side 8 cm x 5 cm with fracture of middle, ring finger and little finger. 2. Entry wound present in right lateral side elbow 2 cm x 4 cm in size, injury is corresponding with wound of exit. 3. Present on the right medial side of elbow size 10 cm x 8 cm with fracture of both bone margins inverted. 4. Entry wound present in right side arm lateral side size 1.5 cm x ½ cm, inverted margins 13 cm below the shoulder tip which is communicating with wound of exit no 5. 5. Exit wound present on right arm medial side 14 cm x 4.5 cm, margins inverted, small piece of metal part recovered. 6. Right side breast show 15 cm x 7 cm wound (illegible) inverted margins. 7. Entry wound 1 cm x 1 cm left back of forearm 10 cm above wrist and 4 cm below the entry wound (illegible) present on cutting pieces of metal found and preserved. 8. Entry wound present in left lateral side of thighs with inverted margins with blackening around the wound 2.5 cm x 4 cm in size, it is communicating with wound of exit. 9. On medial side of thigh, size 4 cm x 3 cm margins inverted, 11 cm from knees. 10. Right thigh medial side slant entry wound size 9 cm x 6 cm x 15 cm below (illegible) which is communicating exit wound 11. 11. 17 cm below the (illegible) 12 cm x 7 cm. 12. 9. On medial side of thigh, size 4 cm x 3 cm margins inverted, 11 cm from knees. 10. Right thigh medial side slant entry wound size 9 cm x 6 cm x 15 cm below (illegible) which is communicating exit wound 11. 11. 17 cm below the (illegible) 12 cm x 7 cm. 12. Wound of entry present in the back (illegible) (illegible) (illegible) size 1 cm x 1.5 cm, inverted margins with blackening. 13. Abrasion present on the stems 4 cm below the stem of neck, 1 cm x 1 cm in size. 14. Abrasion present on the interior side of the (illegible) 3 cm left to medial size 1 cm x 0.5 cm. 15. Multiple abrasion present on the lip interior side (illegible) size 6 cm x 4 cm, 6 cm above knees. 16. Entry wound present on the left lateral side of knees size 1 cm x 1.5 cm inverted margins communicating with wound of exit. 17. Size 6 cm x cm (illegible) left avial medial side of knees margins inverted.....of injury no. 12 is common with right side back wound on (illegible). 14. The post-mortem report of deceased Surjeet reveals following injuries on the dead-body: 1. Firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep present on right forearm 06 cm below elbow. Blackening present. Communicating to injury no. 2. Blackening present, margins inverted. 2. Firearm wound of exit 02 cm x 02 cm x muscle deep present over right forearm 03 cm above injury no 1 and communicating to injury no. 1 on probing (illegible). 3. A firearm cutter injury 15 cm x 10 cm x muscle and bone deep on posterior aspect of right elbow. Blackening present, bone fractured. 4. A firearm wound of entry 02 cm x 1.5 cm communicating to (5) present on left upper abdomen 15 cm above umbilicus at 11'O clock position 05 cm from mid line. Blackening present. Margin inverted. 5. A firearm wound of exit 14 cm x 6 cm x muscle deep communicating to injury no. (4). 6. A firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x communicating to injury no. (7), just above left elbow. Blackening present. Margins inverted. 7. A firearm wound of exit 12 cm x 28 cm communicating to (6), underlying bone fracture. 8. (4). 6. A firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x communicating to injury no. (7), just above left elbow. Blackening present. Margins inverted. 7. A firearm wound of exit 12 cm x 28 cm communicating to (6), underlying bone fracture. 8. A firearm wound of entry 2.5 cm x 02 cm x communicating to (9) present on right side chest 7 cm above nipple at 10'O clock position. Blackening present. 9. A firearm wound of exit 11 cm x 08 cm x communicating to (8). Margins inverted. 10. A wound of entry 03 cm x 02 cm x communicating to (11) present on right side chest 02 cm below nipple at 5'O clock position. Blackening present. 11. A firearm wound of exit 03 cm x 02 cm communicating to (10) present on back. 12. A firearm wound of entry 01 cm x 01 cm on left scapula region, blackening present. 13. A firearm wound of exit 03 cm x 02 cm x communicating to (12) present on right upper chest. 15. In the opinion of doctor, death of both the deceased must have occurred about ¾ days prior to the time of post-mortem because of shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm injuries. Postmortem of deceased Surjeet took place at 2 PM and of deceased Alkana at 2.45 PM on 26.9.2015 and it corroborates the time of incident which is 8.30 PM on 25.9.2015. 16. The number of injuries found on the dead bodies in the postmortem is in support of FIR version in terms of time and manner (indiscriminate firing) of murder. It also goes to show that the assailants intended to cause death and ensured that much of injuries which must result in death of the deceased persons. 17. It appears to be a peculiar case and the murder has been committed in most professional, organized and planned way. The execution has been brutal, dreadful and frightening which shows extreme culpability on the part of the accused applicants. It introduces a new facet of crime and criminal world where the endeavour of the key player is to confuse the criminal justice process and explore advantage. The execution has been brutal, dreadful and frightening which shows extreme culpability on the part of the accused applicants. It introduces a new facet of crime and criminal world where the endeavour of the key player is to confuse the criminal justice process and explore advantage. Moreover, the accused applicants have shown a great tendency to run away from the process of the criminal justice system and even though, the charge-sheet was submitted against them and co-accused persons in absconding, about three years after the filing of charge-sheet, they kept away from the criminal process and 4 co-accused persons are still absconding. They approached to this Court by filing applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. those applications have been dismissed on merits; the Supreme Court also dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9282 of 2018 vide order dated 12.7.2018 and there is every reason to believe that despite knowledge, they kept absconding from the judicial process. Therefore, the response to such crime and criminals is required to be harsh and there cannot be any room for sympathy. 18. In view of the above, I find the offence to be very grave and serious and there is no reason for allowing the bail applications at this stage. The bail applications of the accused applicants Wasi Ahmad, Zabir Hussain and Sabir are therefore, rejected. 19. However, the applicants may move second bail application after statement of the fact witnesses and such bail application shall be decided on merits without being influenced by any observation made during the course of disposal of this bail application. 20. Committal of case be ensured in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of production of this order. Trial to proceed thereafter expeditiously and be disposed of according to law.