ORDER : Heard the petitioners counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This is a successive bail petition filed by accused Nos.5 and 6 and these petitioners earlier have approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.10186/2021 and this Court has rejected the bail petition vide order dated 14.1.2022 and in paragraph No.6 of the judgment while rejecting the bail petition made an observation that when the specific allegations are made against these two accused persons that they have inflicted injury with the handle of the spade as well as wooden stick and taking note of the factual aspects of bail granted in favour of other accused persons, which has been referred supra, the allegation against them is that they assaulted with their hands and the same is found in column No.17 and when such being the factual aspects of the case, it cannot be held that the petitioners are entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 3. Now fresh petition is filed on the ground of parity again and though made the ground on merits and counsel mainly contend that similar allegations made against accused No.4 and he has been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022 contending that these petitioners are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The counsel referred the said order wherein prosecution case is not discussed and only extracted the order of Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 and in paragraph No.5 comes to the conclusion that the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 dated 10.12.2021 on the ground of parity is entitled for bail on the ground that most of the accused have already been enlarged on bail. 4. The counsel also on questioning him whether he has got a copy in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, since the bail is granted based on the said order, produced the same before the Court i.e. in respect of accused Nos.3 and 8, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court made an observation that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also filed and some of the accused are also enlarged on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled for bail, as the main accused No.1 who caused the injury said to be committed death of the decease and the same is taken on record. 5. 5. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that when the accused No.4 has been granted bail and similar allegations made against these petitioners also, they may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also would contend that except accused Nos.1, 5 and 6, all are enlarged on bail and hence these petitioners may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would contend that in the said order the Co-ordinate Bench has not discussed anything about the overt act of accused No.4 and specific overt act is made against him that he inflicted injury with the heavy wooden pound and when the same is not discussed in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the same cannot be relied upon to extend the benefit of parity. The counsel also vehemently contend that accused Nos.3 and 8 who have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, an observation is made that accused No.1 who caused the injury said to be committed death of the deceased and also not discussed anything about the role of accused Nos.3 and 8 in the said order also and hence the said order also cannot be relied upon to grant the bail on the ground of parity. 7. The counsel would vehemently contend that in column No.17 of the charge sheet specific overt act allegation is made against these two petitioners that they inflicted injury with wooden stick and also the handle of the spade and also there were 13 multiple injuries and cause of death is also on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would contend that bamboo wooden stick, heavy round wooden pound and moderately heavy round wooden club are seized and the same are sent to the FSL and the FSL report is also clear that injury Nos.1 to 13 are sustained by using wooden pound and wooden club and also flat bamboo wooden piece and these weapons are used by these petitioners also and injuries correspondence with the said weapons which were seized at the instance of these petitioners and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. 9. 9. Having heard the petitioners counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State and also considering the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting bail in favour of accused Nos.3, 4 and 8, this Court has to consider the material on record and having perused the same, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: i) Whether these petitioners have made out the ground to enlarge them on bail on the ground of parity? ii) What order? 10. Having perused the case of the prosecution against these petitioners in column No.17, a specific overt act by using flat bamboo stick and wooden stick i.e., handle of the spade are used by accused Nos.5 and 6. The petitioners are accused Nos.5 and 6 herein. No doubt this Court granted bail in favour of accused Nos.3 and 8 in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, wherein an observation is made that main accused No.1 who caused injury said to be committed death of the deceased and nothing is discussed with regard to the overt act of accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 and accused Nos.3 and 8 are petitioners in the said petition and an allegation against them is that they assaulted with their hands and hence enlarged them on bail. It is unfortunate that Co-ordinate Bench while granting bail in favour of accused No.4 in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022 nothing is discussed with regard to the overt act made by accused No.4 and instead, only extracted the order passed in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 paragraph Nos.3 to 6 and in paragraph No.5 without discussing the specific overt act made by accused No.4, only comes to the conclusion that most of the accused have been enlarged on bail and referring that order, parity is applied and granted bail. 11. 11. Having perused the accusation made against accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 in column No.17 of the charge sheet, as against accused No.4 stated that heavy round wooden pound was recovered at the instance of accused No.4 and he inflicted injury with the same on his chest, legs and on his back and against the present petitioners herein accusation is that, with the bamboo wooden stick assaulted on all over the body and specifically accused Nos.5 and 6 is concerned, both of them have assaulted with handle of the spade and also with the bamboo stick on all over the body i.e. on the vital parts of chest and also on the head. When the specific overt act is made against them that they assaulted with deadly weapon like heavy round wooden pound and as against these two petitioners with handle of the spade and also with bamboo stick and the same is considered by this Court earlier in rejecting the bail petition in Criminal Petition No.10186/2021 and also in paragraph No.6, observed that a specific allegation is made against them that they inflicted injury with the handle of the spade as well as wooden stick and bail granted in favour of other accused persons, only against them that they assaulted with their hands and hence, rejected the bail petition earlier also on the ground that the Court cannot grant bail on the ground of parity against these petitioners that they used deadly weapons of handle of the spade as well as bamboo stick. 12. Now the main contention of the petitioners counsel that accused No.4 similarly placed was granted bail, this Court has to grant bail on the ground of parity. I have already pointed out that, it is unfortunate that in the said petition, the Coordinate Bench has not discussed anything about the case of the prosecution and charges made against the accused No.4 is that he inflicted injury with heavy round wooden pound. I have already pointed out that, it is unfortunate that in the said petition, the Coordinate Bench has not discussed anything about the case of the prosecution and charges made against the accused No.4 is that he inflicted injury with heavy round wooden pound. Only in one sentence on the ground of parity observed that, most of the accused have been enlarged on bail and most of the accused have been granted bail and the only allegation against them is that they assaulted with their hands, but specific overt act against accused No.4 is that he inflicted injury with the heavy round wooden pound and the same is not discussed in the order and hence this Court cannot rely upon the order passed in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022 to invoke the parity, so also in the other Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 is also in respect of accused Nos.3 and 8 and allegation is that they assaulted with their hands and no doubt an observation is made that on account of act of accused No.1 who caused injuries said to be committed death of the deceased. Even though the overt act of these two petitioners was not referred in the order, taking into note of only allegation that assaulted with their hands, exercised the discretion. The said order also not comes to the aid of the petitioners herein, since specific over act is made against these two petitioners that they inflicted injury with the deadly weapons i.e. handle of the spade as well as the bamboo stick and the same is also considered in the earlier Criminal Petition No.10186/2021 and there is no any changed circumstances to entertain the successive bail petition as contended by the petitioners, even on the ground of parity. 13. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the judgment of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Apex court held that while considering the bail on the ground of parity of co-accused held that while applying the principles of parity, the Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider totality of circumstances before granting bail. It is further observed that, while granting bail on parity, must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon carried by accused. It is further observed that, while granting bail on parity, must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon carried by accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon (as done by High Court in present case) is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on basis of parity. In deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance. 14. The Apex Court has further held that, whether order granting bail can be relied on as a precedent, when and how to be decided, and held that whether order granting bail is a precedent is a matter for future adjudication and when application for bail is moved on grounds of parity on behalf of another accused. In the event that parity is claimed in such case thereafter, it is for that court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether case for grant of bail on grounds of parity is made out. Order granting bail to one of the accused observing that such order shall not be treated as precedent to claim bail on basis of parity in any other case and legality of whether parity can be claimed by any other accused on basis of order granting bail ought not to have been prejudged who was dealing only with application for grant of bail to other accused. Observation that grant of bail to other accused shall not be considered as precedent for any other person who is accused in FIR on grounds of parity does not constitute judicially appropriate reason and is erroneous. The Apex Court also held that seriousness and gravity of offences committed and severity of punishment in event of conviction is at most important. Failure of High Court to consider while granting bail and in the absence of reasons order granting bail in present case, held, perverse and Apex Court set aside the order. 15. The Apex Court also held that seriousness and gravity of offences committed and severity of punishment in event of conviction is at most important. Failure of High Court to consider while granting bail and in the absence of reasons order granting bail in present case, held, perverse and Apex Court set aside the order. 15. In the present case on hand also, when the orders are placed before this Court seeking an order on the ground of parity and I have already pointed out that it is unfortunate that case of the prosecution is not discussed in the order and also role of the other accused No.4 has not been taken note of in the order and no reasons have been assigned except an observation that other accused have been enlarged on bail and fails to take note of the very overt act of the accused and hence, the judgment of the Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand that while applying the principles of parity, Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. It is also specific that while granting bail on the ground of parity, must focus upon role of accused and while deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to incident and the victims is of at most importance. 16. It is also specific that while granting bail on the ground of parity, must focus upon role of accused and while deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to incident and the victims is of at most importance. 16. In the case on hand, specific overt act allegation is made against these two petitioners that they inflicted injury with the handle of spade and also with the bamboo stick and also the doctor’s opinion is very clear that the said nature of injuries could be caused by using the bamboo stick and also the heavy round wooden pound and also the handle of the spade which were used and opinion of the FSL is also very clear that injury Nos.1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 could be caused by the type of wooden pound and wooden club and also injury Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 could be possible to sustain when assaulted with flat bamboo wooden pieces which have been examined and hence, not only the injuries are multiple in nature i.e. 13 in number and cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained and apart from that, FSL report also corresponds with nature of injuries sustained by the victim with the weapons which have been seized at the instance of these petitioners. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion in a successive bail petition to enlarge the petitioners on bail on the ground of parity considering the order passed in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022, wherein nothing is discussed, the role of accused No.4 in the order and the same cannot be a basis for granting bail in favour of petitioners No.5 and 6 on the ground of parity in view of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court referred (supra). Hence, I answer the point as negative. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is rejected.