JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Since all these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Sachin Kumar and Ankit Kumar are in judicial custody in FIR No.124 of 2023, under Sections 395, 452, 342, 412, and 35 IPC, whereas, applicant Vipin Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No.124 of 2023, under Sections 395, 452, 342, 412, and 35 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Nehru Colony, District- Dehradun. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused have already been granted bail; the bail applications of the applicants have been rejected by the court below on the ground that they were identified during Test Identification Parade. He would submit that the Test Identification Parade has no significance because the applicants were not kept baparda. 5. The Court had required learned State Counsel to get instructions in the matter. He would submit that, as per instructions, the applicants were kept baparda. The Court had, in fact, required learned State Counsel to get instructions as to whether the factum of keeping the applicants baparda is recorded in the remand sheet. Learned State Counsel would submit that in the remand sheet, there is no mention of the applicants being kept baparda. 6. Admittedly, co-accused have already been granted bail. 7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. The bail applications are allowed. 9. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.