SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

(2.) Counsel for petitioner submits that co-accused has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and case of the present petitioner is not different than of the co-accused rather it stands on a better footing. A case was registered for offence under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') though soon before the death, there was no demand for dowry. There was a telephonic conversation between the complainant party and the deceased just before the occurrence wherein deceased made no complaint. There exists no evidence to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry. The petitioner is nowhere involved in the matter and Is unnecessarily implicated. It is clearly coming out from the postmortem report that there exist ligature marks on both the sides of the neck with defined size of those marks.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that as and when co-accused is granted bail, parity should be maintained by the coordinate Bench for grant of bail. Relying upon the judgment in the case of Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 62 , it is submitted that therein issue of parity has been taken into consideration by the Honourable Apex Court. Counsel has further referred the judgments of the cases of Shobha Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 1371 ; Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226 ; lzharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 283 .