Sbcrlmb No.4870/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4870/2010. Ram Lal Saini @ Secretary Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : July 29, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rakesh Kumar for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Anoop Dhand for the complainant. ***** This application for grant of bail pending trial has been filed by petitioner-Ram Lal Saini @ Secretary. 2) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated for the alleged offence. He was merely an onlooker and did not actually participate in the incident and that accused Rakesh Kumar alias Lala and Atul Kumar have been granted bail by the court of sessions and this Court, respectively. Case of the petitioner stands on better footing than that of the co-accused, Jamil Khokhar and Manoj Kumar whose bail applications have been rejected by this Court. It is contended that first two witnesses namely; Anoop Dhand & Madhu Sudan Hisariya in their statements recorded by the police on the same day of incident did not name the petitioner but it is in the subsequently recorded statements Sbcrlmb No.4870/10. 2 of witnesses, who have named the petitioner so as to falsely implicate him in the murder of deceased though their statements were recorded with substantial delay. Though witnesses namely; Murlidhar, Ramesh, Manoj Dhokwal, Motilal and Krishna Murari have also named the petitioner but in the later portion of their statements named him as one of the remaining accused, who participated in the offence and did not assign any role. Learned counsel submitted that case of the petitioner stands on better footing than that of Jamil Khokhar and Manoj Kumar, whose bail applications have been dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court particularly when many of the witnesses i.e. Virendra Singh Khinchad, Pramod Pareek, Bharat Nehra, Shabir Dhobi, Anil Swami, Smt.Vimla Devi, Beni Prasad and Ramesh Kumar, whose statements have been recorded, have not named the petitioner. It is contended that Jamil Khokhar had many previous cases registered against him whereas the petitioner, has none and therefore also, case of the petitioner stands on better footing than that of Jamil Khokhar. 3) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that it was the broad-daylight murder in which deceased was subjected to merciless beating inasmuch as, he received 30 injuries. Apart from him, there are Sbcrlmb No.4870/10. 3 three more injured. This is an act of gang war and case of the petitioner in no way stands on better footing than that of Jamil Khokhar whose bail application has already been rejected by this Court. It is contended that Atul Kumar has been granted bail by this Court on consideration of the fact that he did not participate in the offence. He merely provided the house on rent to some of the accused whereas, allegation against the present petitioner is that he used to pass on certain information with regard to the complainant to other accused Ajay Rinwa. There was no allegation against either of the accused for actual participation in the crime. Petitioner is therefore not entitled for bail. 4) Although, learned counsel for petitioner has extensively argued to bring on the point that case of the petitioner is on better footing than that of Jamil Khokhar and he is entitled to bail on his own merit, nevertheless, he was unable to persuade me to agree on the point that his case stands on better footing than that of Jamil Khokhar especially when I perused the detailed order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejecting bail applications of Jamil Khokhar and Manoj Kumar vide order dated 4/8/2009 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc.Bail Application Nos.3840/09 & 4775/09, respectively and thereafter the subsequent order dated 3/4/2010 which is also a detailed order rejecting second bail application Sbcrlmb No.4870/10. 4 of co-accused Jamil Khokhar. When argument of parity is advanced for the purpose of grant of bail, judicial discipline requires that parity has to be ensured amongst those also whose bail applications have been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench by giving certain reasons. 5) Evidence against both the accused being quantitatively and qualitatively, hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6) This bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No.207/2008 P.S. Kotwali, Fatehpur (Sikar) for offence u/Ss.307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 427, 382, 450, 120B IPC and Sections 3/25 & 3/27 of the Arms Act is accordingly rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil