(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.851 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 376, 302, 201/34 I.P.C. and 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Rae Bareli. As against the complicity of the applicant and proposed evidence it is submitted that admittedly the F.I.R. is against unknown persons and the investigation proceeded on the basis of suspicion. The only evidence collected during investigation is that of alleged motive, according to which the applicant along his companions used to tease the deceased/girl. Subsequently they started apprehending that the matter would become public and therefore they killed her. But it is alleged that there is no connecting evidence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain. It is said that co-accused Ajai Pratap Singh having similar allegation against him, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide (Annexure SA-1). He is said to be in jail from 14.10.2008. It is claimed in para 15 that there is no criminal history against him which has not been controverted. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the discussion made hereinabove and also the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Arshad) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.