KHOOBI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Khoobi Ram, learned public prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents places before me including the statement of the witness so far examined during the trial as also the order passed on the bail applications of the co-accused persons admitting them to bail.

(2.) His learned counsel has inter-alia contended that the case of the present petitioner is akin and identical to that of the co-accused person namely; Bhupendra, Bhagwan Singh, Kalua, Collector, Shyamveer, Mukesh, Harvir and Beerbal who have already been admitted to bail. He has also submitted that witnesses Ramkhiladi PW1 and Nawabsingh PW2 have clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they could not tell as to who inflicted which injury. The petitioner is alleged to be armed with a hammer but no specific injury by hammer is ascribed to them and the above said witnesses have also not stated as to which injury was caused by the present petitioner with hammer in the statement recorded under section 161 Crimial P.C. He is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the legs of the deceased with hammer but this is not supported by the witnesses in the court statements.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have both opposed the bail application but they could not show as to which injury of the deceased was the result of the hammer blow despite being called upon repeatedly by the court to do so. They were also not able to indicate any distinguishing feature of the case of petitioner Khoobi Ram from the co-accused already admitted to bail. They have, however, submitted that there are some more cases pending against the petitioner and his case is similar to that of Prem Sing and Babu Lal who have been declined bail. But the mere factum of pendency of some cased against an accused is not a valid ground for declining bail to him especially when similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted the indulgence of bail by this court. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 1993 (1) RLR 335 has clearly held that inconsistent, different or contrary orders should not be passed by the different judges of the High Court and normally parity must be maintained and the decision of the Coordinate and larger Benches should not be ignored. In a recent decision of the Honourable Apex court in the case of Kishan Singh Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav 2005(1) ACJ 267 (S.C.): 2005(1) CCC 780 (S.C.): AIR 2005 SCW 536 , it has been observed by the Honourable Apex Court that the judicial principle requires that the uniformity and parity should normally be observed and the earlier decisions ofthe Co-ordinate Benches or the larger Benches must be followed, otherwise there would be uncertainty injustice delivery system and forum hunting which would not be in the interest of the society at large and the institution itself.