JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey and Manjusha Kapil the counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2022 under section 302, 376, 120-B IPC, P.S. Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 19.02.2022, the mother of the informant aged about 65 years had gone to the farm. It was also stated that beside the farm on which she had gone for working, the two accused Chandresh and the applicant had gone for working where at about 4.00 pm, the applicant pulled the mother of the informant with a view to commit rape on her and killed her with the use of a brick. It was also stated that the sister of the informant went to search her mother then she saw her mother lying naked and the applicant was also lying semi naked. It was also alleged that the villagers has thrashed the applicant. 4. In the statement of the daughter of the informant, it was stated that on the date of incident, she had seen her mother lying naked in a pool of blood and the applicant was lying towards her in a semi naked state and on her raising hue and cry, the villagers came and caught hold of the applicant. 5. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that although in terms of the FIR and in terms of the statement, the applicant was apprehended from the spot, however in the arrest memo, which is contained in Annexure no.5, it has been stated that on receiving an information that the applicant was discharged from hospital on 22.02.2022 on the basis of the information received, the applicant was arrested from a park. 6. In the light of the said, the submission counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is being falsely implicated as the arrest memo and the version in the FIR and the statement of the witness are at huge variance. It is argued that Chandresh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2022. 7. 6. In the light of the said, the submission counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is being falsely implicated as the arrest memo and the version in the FIR and the statement of the witness are at huge variance. It is argued that Chandresh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2022. 7. The learned AGA, on the other hand, opposes the bail application by arguing that a heinous offence was committed on a lay aged about 65 years and the villagers were present on the spot, thus, the bail application should be rejected. It is further argued that parity cannot be claimed with Chandresh. 8. Considering the said submissions, although, the allegations against Chandresh and applicant are different, as such, no case for parity is made out. However, in view of huge inconsistencies in the statements in the FIR and the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the arrest memo, prima-facie a case for bail is made out more so when the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 25.02.2022, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Brijlal Nishad be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.