JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. All these petitions arising out of same FIR, for involvement of common question of law and fact, are being decided together by this common order. 2. Instant petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No. 147 of 2021, dated 24.5.2021, registered in Police Station, Nalagarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 201 IPC and 25, 29B, 30 of the Arms Act. 3. Status report filed and records also made available. Records of cross FIR No.161 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021 registered in Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 336, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was also made available. 4. It transpires from the record that on 24.05.2021, FIR in present case was registered on the basis of statement made by one Rajinder Singh, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that on 24.05.2021 complainant alongwith his companions namely Simran alias Simmu, Akbar alias Akku, Nazim alias Raja, Iqbal Mohammad alias Pala, Rammi, Rajan and others was going in two vehicles bearing registration Nos.HP-12M-7845 and HP12N7845 from Bhud to Falahi Kotla and when they reached near Petrol Pump Khera, at about 3.00 p.m., some vehicles came from Nalagarh side and out of those vehicles, one black coloured Scorpio hit the car bearing registration No.HP-12M-7845, and 10-15 persons came out of other vehicles including Balbir alias Ballu, Rakesh, Avtar, Jagpal alias Kakku, Vijay Kumar alias Vishu and Bindu and they fired on the car and some of them and others were carrying swords (Kirpan and Darat etc.) and in this incident Simran alias Simmu received bullet shot in his chest whereas Avtar and Nazim received bullet injuries and complainant and Iqbal Mohammad alias Pala were also injured, however, Rammi and Rajan did not receive any injury. Thereafter, the assailants had run away from the spot in their vehicles and injured were taken to hospital, where Simran alias Simmu was declared dead. Two gunshot grievous injuries were found on the body of Akbar. Similarly two grievous bullet injuries were also found on the person of Nazim alias Raja. Whereas, Iqbal alias Pala and complainant had received blunt injuries. 5. Two gunshot grievous injuries were found on the body of Akbar. Similarly two grievous bullet injuries were also found on the person of Nazim alias Raja. Whereas, Iqbal alias Pala and complainant had received blunt injuries. 5. It was also stated in the aforesaid statement by the complainant that earlier also, on 22.05.2021 at about 9.00 p.m. petitioner Iqbal Mohammad alias Pala was restrained by Jagpal and 7- 8 other boys near Harison Hotel at Nalagarh and they tried to hit him with sword, but he had run away from the spot swiftly, but Jagpal and his companions had again intercepted his vehicle and had shown pistol and sword to the petitioner with threat that they would kill him and on the basis of complaint of the petitioner in this regard, a Rapat No.36 dated 22.05.2021 was entered in the Daily Diary of Police Station Nalagarh at 11.15 p.m. According to petitioners, accused party as detailed in FIR No.147 of 2021 was searching Simran alias Simmu and others to kill them and one day before the incident all of them had also visited the native village of Simran alias Simmu in his search. 6. On the basis of aforesaid complaint of Rajinder Singh, after registration of FIR, accused persons were arrested and weapons of offences were also recovered from them. Vehicles used by them as well as Car No.HP-12M-7845 were searched and inspected. As per prosecution case, during inspection of vehicles, one bullet of 8MM was recovered from Scorpio bearing registration No. HP-15E-1717 which was used by accused persons in commission of offence. 7. As per prosecution case, Avtar Singh is main conspirator in present case, wherein one Simran @ Simu has been murdered in sequel to a conspiracy hatched by petitioner and other co-accused. Occurrence of incident in present case is a result of chains of incidents taking place since 27th March, 2021, as on that date during Panchayat Elections co-accused Avtar Singh abused Simran @ Simu and consequently during evening of that day Simran @ Simu and his friends beat Avtar Singh regarding which a case was registered against Simran @ Simu and others as an FIR No. 93 of 2021, dated 27.3.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC in Police Station Nalagath. Thereafter group of Avtar Singh beat Ashraf Ali, God brother of Simran @ Simu at Nanawal to take revenge of beating Avtar Singh. Thereafter group of Avtar Singh beat Ashraf Ali, God brother of Simran @ Simu at Nanawal to take revenge of beating Avtar Singh. Consequently a case was registered against Avtar Singh and others as FIR No. 100 of 2021, dated 3.4.2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 326 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in Police Station, Nalagarh. 8. According to prosecution case, main target of Avrar Singh and his group was Simran @ Simu, therefore, co-accused Avtar Singh alongwith his companions conspired to kill Simran @ Simu and in furtherance to that conspiracy, on 22.5.2021, group of Avtar Singh had intercepted friends of Simran @ Simu and inquired them about location of Simran @ Simu with their expressed intention to kill him. Avtar Singh’s group was searching Simran @ Simu at various places wherever his presence was expected and possible and ultimately on 24.5.2021 Simran @ Simu was killed by gunshot, resulting in lodging of FIR in present case. During the same period marriage of sister of co-accused Avtar Singh was scheduled on 23-24.5.2022. 9. According to status report, during investigation, it has surfaced that on 23-24.5.2022 there was marriage of sister of main accused Avtar Singh @ Thona and, therefore, under the garb of attending the marriage on 23.5.2021, accused Avtar Singh, for taking revenge from Simran @ Simu, called accused Sunny Umri, Balbir @ Balu, Rakesh Kumar, Jagpal Singh alias Kaku, Radhey Shyam (petitioner in Cr.MP.(M) No. 2246 of 2022), Pardeep alias Prince (petitioner in Cr.MP (M) No. 2340 of 2022), Gurdeep (petitioner in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2247 of 2022), in his village Balbirpur. Accused Vijay alias Viju, Mohinder Pal (petitioner in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1843 of 2022) and Devinder alias Bindu came to Saudi (Gulabpura) on a Motor Cycle No. PB-12Z-6650, where Vijay alias Viju called his friend Parvinder Singh alias Mangu (petitioner in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2151 of 2022) and all three of them reached on the address informed by Rakesh Kumar, wherefrom they were taken to the room by Gurdhyan Singh alias Bau, where other co-accused were already present. At that place, all of them planned to teach a lesson to Simran alias Simu and his friends and they decided to take revenge from them in all eventualities by 24.5.2021. As Avtar was receiving repeated calls from home to attend the marriage, he went to his home at Village Balbirpur. At that place, all of them planned to teach a lesson to Simran alias Simu and his friends and they decided to take revenge from them in all eventualities by 24.5.2021. As Avtar was receiving repeated calls from home to attend the marriage, he went to his home at Village Balbirpur. Other stayed in a house arranged by Gurdian Singh @ Bau and after taking lunch, all of them started search of Simran alias Simu in a Car Scorpio and Motor Cycle. From place Mahadev, Gurdhyan Singh alias Bau was sent back by them. 10. As per prosecution case, in a planned manner, accused persons reached at Khera at about 3:00 P.M. and located Simran alias Simu coming in his Car and Balbir alias Ballu collided his Scorpio directly with the Car of Simran alias Simu and all 11 accused deboarded their vehicles and out of them Balbir alias Ballu fired with country pistol targeting Simran @ Simmu and Rakesh resident of Gurumajra also opened fire, whereas Pardeep Kumar alias Prince carrying Kirpan/Talwar/Sword and other accused carrying other arms attacked Simran @ Simmu and his companions. Jagpal alias Kaku opened fire from his double barrel gun causing injury in the chest of Simran @ Simu leading to his death. Akbar and Najeem also received bullet injuries, whereas Rummu and Rajan as well as accused persons did not received any injury. After commission of offence accused persons fled from the spot. During investigation, on the basis of statement of Balbir alias Ballu desi pistol (Katta) was recovered which was taken in possession by Police. 11. As per prosecution case, at the time of incident Mohinder was carrying iron pipe in his hand, which was thrown by him after the incident on the spot. During investigation, Police has taken in possession iron pipe and two other sword like iron arms from the spot. As per status report, after arrest, accused Mohinder Pal, Parvinder, Gurdeep Singh, Radhey Shyam and Pardeep Kumar (petitioners), were subjected to Test Identification Parade on 29.5.2021 in District jail, Solan, in presence of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein Rajinder Singh, Rajan and Akbar, who were accompanying Simran @ Simmu on the date of incident and were present on the spot identified all 5 petitioners as accused persons involved in commission of offence, present on the spot on the date of incident. 12. 12. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that despite suffering almost 2 years detention, charges have not been framed in the present case and there was no motive for the petitioners to commit the crime as according to prosecution case incident took place for taking revenge of an incident of scuffle taken place between complainant party and Balbir @ Ballu and Kaku etc. because of enmity of Avtar, Balbir, Rakesh, Jaspal, Jindu and their companions and there is no mention of name of petitioners either in that scuffle or in FIR lodged with respect to incident in reference in present case, and complainant never stated that petitioners were also involved either in present scuffle or on the date of incident. It has been contended that as per prosecution case petitioner Mohinder Pal was having iron rod in his hand, which as per Police was recovered from the spot, however, there is no disclosure statement by accused Mohinder Pal under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to the said recovery so as to link petitioner Mohinder Pal with the same. It has been contended that no witness has stated that Mohinder Pal and Pardeep were having rod and sword in their hands and otherwise also allegations of having arm in the hands of petitioners, claimed on the basis of Police investigation, are not admissible under the Evidence Act. 13. It has been further stated that death of Simran alias Simmu was not a case of planned manner, but as per prosecution case also accused persons were intending to teach him a lesson, but the said intention nowhere indicates that there was planning or intention to kill Simran @ Simmu. 14. It has been submitted that, as reported in prosecution story, fire arms were opened on Simran, not by the petitioners, but others injuring Simran @ Simmu and there is no evidence of conspiracy of accused persons to kill Simran @ Simmu, as ‘teaching a lesson’ never means that a person shall be murdered. 15. 14. It has been submitted that, as reported in prosecution story, fire arms were opened on Simran, not by the petitioners, but others injuring Simran @ Simmu and there is no evidence of conspiracy of accused persons to kill Simran @ Simmu, as ‘teaching a lesson’ never means that a person shall be murdered. 15. It has been stated that petitioners are innocent persons and they have been impleaded in the case without any evidence but on the basis of Test Identification Parade which is not sufficient to convict the petitioners, rather it has no relevance and evidentiary value and it shall be subject to cross-examination on behalf of defence and it has been stated that there is every possibility of supply of photographs of the petitioners to the victim party for the purpose of identification as petitioners were already in jail since long before conducting of Test Identification Parade. 16. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that they are young persons ranging aged between 20 and 25 years having no criminal history and referring Satinder Kumar Antil Vs. Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , it has been contended that ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’ and there is a presumption of innocence of accused unless contrary is proved and as there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with commission of offence, as such, they are entitled for bail. 17. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that alleged murder of Simran @ Simmu was because of gun bullet, whereas allegations against the petitioners are that they were armed with swords, dandas/sticks and there is no mention either in challan or in evidence with respect to causing injuries by the petitioners with sword or danda to anyone. It has been further stated that there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses by the petitioners. 18. It has been further submitted that co-accused Gurdhyan Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1036 of 2022, titled Gurdhyan Singh Vs. State of H.P. and, therefore, petitioners, on the same analogy, are also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. 19. 18. It has been further submitted that co-accused Gurdhyan Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.6.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1036 of 2022, titled Gurdhyan Singh Vs. State of H.P. and, therefore, petitioners, on the same analogy, are also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that on perusal of order dated 22.6.2022 passed in Gurdhyan Singh’s case, it is evident that role and accusation against Gurdhyan Singh was altogether different and he has been arrayed as an accused under Section 120B of IPC, but not for direct involvement of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. Whereas petitioners have been found, as per evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, present on the spot, participating actively in commission of offence and, therefore, they cannot claim parity. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General, placing on record proceedings of Test Identification Report, has contended that all 5 petitioners were duly identified by Rajinder, Rajan and Akbar and the identification was conducted by following complete prescribed process and each and every accused was identified by three persons each separately by conducting four rounds of Identification Parade of each accused. All of them were identified by Rajinder, Rajan and Akbar in individual Test Identification Parades without any interaction amongst them. He has further submitted that as contended on behalf of petitioners, Test Identification Parade shall be subjected to cross-examination, but that stage has not yet come and, as on date, Test Identification Parade is in existence on record against the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot claim that Test Identification was not conducted in accordance with law, especially for the detailed proceedings available on record. 21. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that FIR is not an encyclopedia. Absence of names of petitioners in the FIR is an irrelevant fact as in the FIR complainant has categorically stated that there were other persons also who were present with the accused mentioned in the FIR, who could be identified by him by face, and now petitioners stand identified, not only by the complainant, but two other persons of victim party, independently to each other in Test Identification Parade and, therefore, this ground is not available for enlarging the petitioners on bail. 22. 22. It has been further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that on the basis of disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, made by Gurdeep Singh and Radhey Shyam, sword and danda respectively were recovered. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that after Test Identification Parade, in his supplementary statement Rajinder Singh complainant has corroborated the presence of petitioners on the spot in commission of offence. 23. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioners are accused of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC for which they can be punished for life imprisonment or capital punishment and, therefore, plea raised on their behalf about the period of detention is not relevant for enlarging them on bail, particularly keeping in view detention suffered by petitioners as on date. 24. Without commenting on merits of the case, but taking into consideration material placed before me and nature and gravity of offence and social impact of enlarging the petitioners on bail, and also factors and parameters required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application as propounded by the Courts, including Supreme Court, I find that petitioners are not entitled for bail at this stage. Accordingly petitions are dismissed. 25. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail applications. Petition stands disposed of.