JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Addl. P.P., who has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 65/2022 under Sec. 120B/109/384/306 of the I.P.C. has filed this application for pre-arrest bail under sec. 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 6 (six) accused are named in the FIR dtd. 16/2/2022. Out of them, against 3 (three) accused, it has been alleged that they had conspired to collect naked photographs of the victim (since deceased) and black-mailed and extorted money from him. Moreover, it was alleged in the FIR that the main 3 (three) accused had established nexus with the remaining 3 (three) accused including the petitioner and blackmailed the victim by demanding Rs.20.00 lakh by threatening him of uploading his naked photographs in the social media at the time of municipal elections. It was submitted that in the FIR it was not disclosed that to which of the accused the victim had paid money. Thus, it was submitted that merely because the victim had committed suicide and left a suicide note in the social media of whatsApp in a particular political party connected group, such allegations, even if taken at its face value, would not be enough to implicate and/or charge the petitioner of having committed an offence of abetting suicide of the victim. It was submitted that this Court by order dtd. 28/3/2022 passed in A.B. 651/2022, had granted absolute pre-arrest bail to one of the co-accused, who was similarly situated as the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that after perusal of the case diary, while granting pre-arrest bail, the coordinate Bench of this Court had observed as follows:- "A perusal of the case diary including the suicide note reveals certain prima facie adverse materials against the petitioner's conduct prior to commission of suicide by Kartik. However, subject to final outcome in investigation, there is absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioner to instigate or aid in committing the suicide by the deceased, although his name appears in the suicide note along with others. However, subject to final outcome in investigation, there is absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioner to instigate or aid in committing the suicide by the deceased, although his name appears in the suicide note along with others. It is prima facie noticed that he was the victim of blackmailing, after his naked photographs were forcibly taken by one of the named persons therein and thereafter, extorted money from him in installments." 4. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the present petitioner was similarly situated, he was entitled to be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail on the ground of parity. 5. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that in the suicide note of the victim, which was uploaded on the social media just before he committed suicide, he had clearly and unambiguously mentioned that he was contemplating to contest municipal election and in the month of January, the present petitioner along with the other co-accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh and had threatened that if money was not paid, his naked photos would become viral, and accordingly, he paid an amount of Rs.5.00 lakh and pleaded that he had no more money to pay, but the demand for remaining money came and thereafter, the victim had stated that he could not take food properly for last three days and could not share these facts with anyone and for that reason, he had no option and was compelled to take the decision, otherwise in this way how can he pay money to them for how much time and therefore, he had stated that he preferred death to be better than his life. 6. From the above referred contents of the suicide note, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the deceased victim, immediately before committing suicide, had specifically implicated the name of the petitioner along with other co-accused of blackmailing and extorting money from him and had threatened him of making his naked photographs viral in social media. It may be mentioned that in the suicide note the deceased had specifically mentioned that earlier in point of time, the other 3 (three) co-accused had extorted a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh and another sum of Rs.2.00 lakh from the deceased. It may be mentioned that in the suicide note the deceased had specifically mentioned that earlier in point of time, the other 3 (three) co-accused had extorted a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh and another sum of Rs.2.00 lakh from the deceased. Thus, after payment of Rs.5.00 lakh as aforesaid, later on, the petitioner and other two co- accused inclusive of the co-accused who was granted bail by order 28/3/2022 in A.B. 651/2022, had demanded another sum of Rs.20.00 lakh from the deceased, leading to his committing suicide. 7. At this stage of considering bail, the Court is not called upon to examine the merit of the evidence collected during investigation with a view to find out if it would be sufficient to lead to the conviction of the accused in respect of the offence alleged. 8. It is no longer res integra that some amount of judicial discretion is available to the Court in the matter of grant of bail. The Court is conscious of the fact that another co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by another coordinate Bench of this Court by virtue of the order referred herein before. However, in the present case in hand, the Court finds a very active role of the petitioner in demanding money by threatening and blackmailing the deceased victim of making his naked photographs viral, which as per investigation carried out so far, was purportedly with a named co-accused, who is stated to be a lady police personnel, which had hampered the prospects of the victim as a candidate in municipal elections. Thus, it prima facie appears that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the investigation carried out so far. Moreover, the Court is of the considered opinion that while considering the prayer for bail of a person, materials available against such accused is required to be viewed and that the role of a co-accused is not necessary to be critically examined. 9. On the invoking of the principle of parity in the matter of grant of bail, it may be mentioned that a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 , had held that the High Court while granting bail must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of parity. It was observed as under:- "26. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 , had held that the High Court while granting bail must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of parity. It was observed as under:- "26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21.12. 2020, the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A- 15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22/10/2020 on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law." 10. The said view was again approved by another two- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahadev Meena Vs. Praveen Rathore and Anr., (2021) 0 Supreme(SC) 518: 2021 SCC Online 804. 11. Therefore, notwithstanding that another co-accused has been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, but in the present case in hand, this is not found to be a fit and proper case for extending the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, despite his appearance before the Investigating Officer after being granted interim pre-arrest bail by order dtd. 7/4/2022. Thus, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected and this application stands dismissed. 12. The interim bail granted to the petitioner, namely, Debanand Thakur, by order dt. 7/4/2022. Thus, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected and this application stands dismissed. 12. The interim bail granted to the petitioner, namely, Debanand Thakur, by order dt. 7/4/2022 in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 65/2022 is vacated. 13. The case diary is returned.