JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. By way of instant petition, filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated 15.08.2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.08.2023 a telephonic information was received at Police Post Haripur Dhar that a person was found dead in suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, the police party left for Haripurdhar and found the corpse of deceased Rajender alias Pappu at Kharoti Khala. The police recorded the statement of Rajender Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that today at about 8:40 p.m. his sister telephonically inquired from him that her husband Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) could not be seen anywhere. On this, when he started searching for his brother-in-law (Jija), he came to know that his brother-in-law was sitting in the hotel of Manoj Chhinta at Haripurdhar and on making inquiries, Manoj Chhinta disclosed to him that Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) had left his homestay at about 6:30 p.m. At about 10 p.m. he was telephonically informed by Sunder Lalta that Rajender alias Pappu (deceased) was murdered by Kaka Manta and thereafter he was taken in a car and his corpse was thrown in a gorge near Kharoti Khala. Sunder Lalta also told him that Kaka Manta was accompanying Naresh and Singhta. Thereafter, the complainant Rajender Kumar alognwith Ankit and Tanmay went to Kharoti Khala in search of the deceased and found the corpse of the deceased lying in the ghaasni at a distance of about 50-60 meters from the road. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR in question came to be registered and the investigation commenced. On 15.08.2023, accused Saurav Manta and Lucky (petitioner herein) were arrested. On 19.08.2023, accused Naresh Kumar and Ramesh Chand were arrested. On 20.09.2023, Rajat Lalta surrendered before the police. 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On 15.08.2023, accused Saurav Manta and Lucky (petitioner herein) were arrested. On 19.08.2023, accused Naresh Kumar and Ramesh Chand were arrested. On 20.09.2023, Rajat Lalta surrendered before the police. 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that other co-accused persons namely Rajat Lalta alias Golu and Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu have already been released on bail by this Court, as such, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. 6. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. In Chaman Lal Vs. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Another , (2004) 7 SCC 525 , the Apex Court has laid down requisite factors for consideration of bail i.e., (i) nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 7. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another , (2004) 7 SCC 528 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter or course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 8. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 and the said factors are as follows: 9…………… "(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. ………..” 9. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy , (2013) 7 SCC 452 the Apex Court has reiterated the principle by observing as follows: "34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 10. In Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. The State of Karnataka , AIR 2017 SC 1685 the Apex Court held that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “18. In Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. The State of Karnataka , AIR 2017 SC 1685 the Apex Court held that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “18. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed:- “The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law.” 11. In Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi AIR 2017 SC 5398 the Apex Court by relying upon various judgments held that for ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “29. In the present case, the trial is at a very crucial stage. The trial court is yet to record the testimony of material witnesses including the complainant as well as all the material witnesses. The trial has commenced and the trial is said to be posted for 04.12.2017. For ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the appellants are not enlarged on bail. 30. We are conscious of the fact that the appellants are only under trials and their liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck. Referring to Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286 and other cases, in State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav (2017) 2 SCC 178 , this Court held as under:- "26. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses, etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer........" [underlying added]” 12. In Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and another , (2020) 2 SCC 118 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude. Though the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power of the Court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In the said case, the guiding factors for exercise of power to grant bail as held in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 , were referred, which are as follows: “11…………. 3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. 3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case...The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be (2002) 3 SCC 598 considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the Accused is entitled to an order of bail." 13. In view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the record reveals that on 14.08.2023, accused Rajat Lalta, accused Naresh Kumar and Jagdish alias JD were present at Lohandhar and in the meantime, Balbir alias Ballu also reached there. In view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the record reveals that on 14.08.2023, accused Rajat Lalta, accused Naresh Kumar and Jagdish alias JD were present at Lohandhar and in the meantime, Balbir alias Ballu also reached there. Accused Rajat Lalta brought one bottle of liquor there and except Jagdish alias JD all of them had consumed liquor. Accused Naresh Kumar had also asked accused Saurav Manta alias Kaka on telephone to reach there. Since at that time petitioner Lucky was also present in the house of accused Saurav Manta, as such, both of them came to Lohandhar in a car bearing registration No. HP-08A-6468, where except Jagdish all of them had consumed liquor. Thereafter all of them went to Haripurdhar in the aforesaid car. There accused Rajat Lalta had purchased another bottle of liquor and at Haripurdhar, Ramesh Chand alias Bittu also met them, from where, all of them went towards Nahan Side. A little ahead of Haripurdhar, all of them, except Jagdish consumed liquor, where accused Naresh Kumar desired to have charas/sulfa. Therefore, accused Naresh Kumar had called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased), who used to sell charas/sulfa. However, he refused to give them charas. On this, all of them except Balbir alias Ballu and Jagdish alias JD had planned to kill Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) and they again called him on telephone to give them charas. He (deceased) agreed to it and asked them to come to Rajgarh road. At Rajgarh road, accused Rajat Lalta and Jagdish alighted from the car and accused Naresh Kumar had again called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) on his phone. At that time, Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) was sitting in the homestay of Manoj Chhinta and thereafter, he came there and sat in the car of accused Saurav Manta, in which, accused Naresh Kumar and petitioner Lucky were already sitting. A little ahead Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) gave charas to them and in the meantime, accused Rajat Lalta and Ramesh Chand alias Bittu also came there and all of them had consumed charas. Accused Ramesh Chand kept one knife in the car of accused Saurav Manta. A little ahead Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) gave charas to them and in the meantime, accused Rajat Lalta and Ramesh Chand alias Bittu also came there and all of them had consumed charas. Accused Ramesh Chand kept one knife in the car of accused Saurav Manta. The car was being driven by accused Saurav Manta and at that time petitioner Lucky was sitting on the co-driver seat and on the rear seats accused Naresh Kumar, Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) and Balbir alias Ballu were sitting. However, accused Ramesh Chand and accused Rajat Lalta did not sit in the car and came back towards Haripurdhar Bazaar. A little ahead, accused Saurav Manta had parked his car on the side of the road and accused Naresh Kumar gave him knife and thereafter, accused Saurav Manta stabbed the deceased on his neck, as a result of which, he died. After that in order to destroy the evidence, accused Naresh Kumar and Saurav Manta threw the dead body of the deceased below the road near Kharoti Khala and petitioner Lucky took the money, mobile phone and charas, which fell down from the pocket of the deceased. Thereafter accused persons ran away towards Solan and on the way, petitioner Lucky threw the SIM card of the mobile phone, which fell down from the pocket of the deceased. 14. Thus the perusal of the record prima facie reveals that at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and had also taken the money, mobile phone and charas which fell down from the pocket of the deceased. Thereafter, he alongwith other accused persons ran towards Solan and on the way, he threw the SIM card of the mobile belonging to the deceased. Thus, prima facie, there was an active participation of the petitioner in the commission of alleged crime and thereafter in causing disappearance of evidence. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next contended that other co-accused persons namely Rajat Lalta alias Golu and Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu have been granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be released on bail. 16. However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this prayer of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 16. However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this prayer of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that case of the petitioner is not identically placed with the aforesaid co-accused persons as is being claimed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 17. It is a settled law that parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co- accused has been granted bail. Before considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, a brief recapitulation of the law on the aspect of parity may be apposite. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot exercise it powers in a capricious manner and before granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court must focus upon the role of the accused and his position in relation to the incident and victims is also of utmost importance. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- "25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge- sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside. 26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. " 18. Similar reiteration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be found in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, wherein it has been held that parity is not the law, rather the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: "18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration…………………” 19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.” 19. Tested on the touch stone of above principles, the petitioner’s submission premised on the ground of parity, is found to be devoid of merit, as the other co-accused persons namely Rajat Lalta alias Golu and Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu, who have been granted bail by this Court, were not present at the place of occurrence where the deceased was killed, rather as per the prosecution story itself, they had alighted from the car and came back to Haripurdhar Bazaar and in their case, the prosecution had failed to place on record any evidence which could show that they had also participated in the commission of murder of the deceased in furtherance of common intention. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused namely Rajat Lalta alias Golu and Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu as the case of petitioner stands on a different footing. Thus the principle of parity for grant of bail would not be applicable to him. 20. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner and also in view of the larger public interest, the present is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. in favour of the petitioner. 21. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 22. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.