Order : 1. The instant application for cancellation of bail has been submitted by the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") for cancellation of bail of the accused- person Sanjay Sagar on the ground that indulgence of bail was granted to him on incorrect facts mentioned by the said accused before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the ground of parity, the indulgence of bail was granted to the accused by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022. Counsel submits that the case of the accused-person Sanjay Sagar was not at par with the case of co-accused Mahendra Chhipa and Manoj Pareek, as they were not named in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the complainant and one witness Harendra Singh. Counsel submits that the name of the accused-Sanjay Sagar was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of these two witnesses, but the names of the co-accused Mahendra Chhipa and Manoj Pareek were not mentioned in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the above two persons, hence, under these circumstances, the accused-person's case was not at par with the co-accused person's, and the same was distinguishable, as he was the main accused in the case. Therefore, under these circumstances, the bail granted to the accused-person Sanjay Sagar is liable to be cancelled. 3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate/ learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for accused-person opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the F.I.R., name of the accused-person Sanjay Sagar was mentioned along- with the other co-accused persons, but there is no specific overt-act assigned to any of the accused persons. Counsel submits that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory and it is not a case of direct evidence. Counsel submits that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of bail was granted to the co-accused persons Mahendra Chhipa and Manoj Pareek and looking to the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, the same indulgence of bail was extended to the accused-person Sanjay Sagar as well, hence, there was no concealment/ mentioning of incorrect facts before the Court, when the bail was granted to the accused-person Sanjay Sagar. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned Government Advocate/ Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the accused-respondent and looking to the fact that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and also last seen theory and no specific overt-act has been assigned to any of the accused persons and allegation of alleged last seen is there against all the three accused, hence, taking note of the material aspect of the matter all the accused persons were granted similar benefit of bail, on the ground of parity, which was extended to the accused-respondent Sanjay Sagar by this Court by passing a reasoned and cogent order. 6. The only difference between the case of the petitioner is that he was named in F.I.R. and statements of the complainant and Harendra Singh. As per the allegation in F.I.R. and statements of these two witnesses, apart from petitioner other accused-person were also there. The other witnesses have assigned the same role to each of the other two accused-persons, i.e., Mahendra Chhipa and Manoj Pareek. Since the role assigned to all of them was similar, hence, bail applications of all the three accused-persons were accepted by this Court. 7. There was no concealment on the part of the respondent, hence, this Court finds no merit and substance in this application.Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.