ORDER : 1. I have today rejected the application for the following reasons. 2. The applicant is original accused no.2 and is accused of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The chargesheet reveals that on 27.12.2020 between 16.00 hours to 18.00 hrs at Dando Beach, Velsao, Mormugao, the applicant along with other accused in furtherance with their common intention appears to have committed murder of their roommate one Khagen Nath by stabbing him and assaulting him with a stone. Mr. Desai, the learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the complaint is false and a concocted story. He submits that the applicant who is a fisherman and has no criminal record has been falsely implicated. He has been chargesheeted merely on suspicion and there is nothing to connect the applicant with the crime in question. He submits that since the chargesheet has been filed no further investigation is required. 3. Mr. Desai submits that co-accused has been granted bail on 29.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application Bail No. 697 of 2021. The applicant being in a similar position is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The other reason Mr. Desai has canvassed before me is that the applicant has to look after his old parents and he is the only earning member. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the applicant be released on bail subject to conditions, pending the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao. 4. The application is opposed by the prosecution. Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as set out in the say of the Investigating Officer, the applicant has assaulted and stabbed the deceased with a glass bottle and thereafter assaulted him with a stone and resulting in his instant demise. He has relied on the report of the Goa State Forensic Science Laboratory. He submits that the investigation has revealed that the accused persons had visited a liquor shop and footage gathered therefrom had led to the capture of the accused. The deceased person was part of the group of five persons who were proceedings towards "Zuari gate". Mr Desai has also filed a copy of the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and its annexures in support of his contentions. 5. Mr. The deceased person was part of the group of five persons who were proceedings towards "Zuari gate". Mr Desai has also filed a copy of the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and its annexures in support of his contentions. 5. Mr. Bhobe, submitted that the patrolling team of the jurisdictional police station later received information that three suspected persons including the applicant were apprehended by the Konkan Railway police since one of them met the description of the applicant a photograph was circulated and photograph was found to be matching with one of the suspects in the CCTV footage captured at Welcome Liquor shop. The applicant had apparently sustained cut injury on his hand during the scuffle. He was then arrested. 6. Mr. Bhobe, submitted that the applicant does not have any permanent address in the State of Goa and there is a strong possibility of the accused jumping bail and absconding leading to the trial being hampered and delayed. 7. In the course of submissions, Mr. Desai relied upon the order dated 3.3.2022 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 34 of 2021(F) which was filed by the accused no. 3 and 4 and in that order this Court has recorded that petitioners were two of the four accused in connection with FIR registered on 28.12.2020 with the subject crime. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons and pursuant to the investigation, four persons accused were identified. This Court found that on viewing the CCTV footage of the liquor shop one person was seen with the deceased. Five persons including those two who appeared in the liquor shop were found in CCTV footage at the petrol pump at Birla market. It is on the basis of these photographs which the Konkan Railway police station had circulated the police apprehended the accused. 8. On interrogation, the applicant allegedly confessed to the crime. Thereafter an identification parade was organised for one Francisco Aguiar who claimed to have seen a group of five persons picnicking at Dando Beach on 27.12.2020 being the date of the incident, although he was unable to identify the accused persons. This Court then observed on appreciation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. This Court then observed on appreciation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 that if material on record gives rise to suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the Court could grant discharge. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Court is empowered to discharge the accused and the Court is not required to see that trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 9. In the present application, the FIR was registered against the unknown persons on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Investigating Authorities zeroed in on accused no.2 on the basis of the CCTV footage of the liquor shop where he was allegedly seen in the company of the victim. The Court found that the petitioner was arrested because they were found seen in the company of the applicant herein. Reference was made to the order of the Sessions Court which had rejected the application for discharge. That the record indicated the presence of the accused persons at the spot of the incident. The Court observed that the panchanama dated 7.1.2021 was also referred to only for the purpose of examining the statements made by the accused and to examine the direction in which the prosecution was proceedings. The Court opined that although the involvement of the co-accused namely the petitioner was indicated, there was no material on record to justify grave suspicion against the petitioners in that case and in that view disagreed with the findings of the Sessions Court. The order of the Sessions Court was quashed and set aside and the petitioners therein were discharged. 10. Reliance upon this order by Mr. Desai will not be any assistance since there is no question of invoking the principles of parity in the facts of the case. While applying the principles of parity the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod VS Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli )and another (2021) 6 SCC 230 that the manner in which parity is to be determined would require the Court not to exercise the power in a capricious manner but had to consider the totality of the circumstances before granting bail. Parity must focus on the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused was granted bail is not sufficient for bail to be granted. In the facts of the present case, considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the applicant herein was found with injuries it is observed that medical examination of the applicant dated 29.12.2020 reveals that there were injuries which had been sustained within 24 to 48 hours prior to examination in the case of the applicant. I am therefore, of the view that the principles of parity do not come to the assistance of the applicant. 11. The Sessions Court has in the impugned order recorded that there is prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's involvement and there is the likelihood of jumping bail if so released. His presence at the spot is not disputed. In fact, the order records that the applicant had gone for a picnic on that day. The accused no.1 was seen with a bandage wrapped on his palm. I see no reason to disagree with the order. This application for bail cannot be allowed for the reason aforesaid, I, therefore, I pass the following order:- (a) The application is rejected.