KAPIL KUMAR & 3 ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these four bail applications pertain to and arise out of the same FIR No. 33/04 PS. Shivdaspura Distt. Jaipur for the offence u/s. 395 IPC, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner have contended that the entire amount allegedly looted has been recovered and similarly situated two co-accused persons Ramdayal and Om Kumar have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate benches of this court. They have further contended on the strength of D.B. Decision of this court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan RLR 1993(1) 335 that the inconsistent, different or contrary orders should not be passed by the different Judges of the High Court and normally parity must maintained and the decision of the co-ordinate and larger benches should not be ignored. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and involved in this case on the basis of unfounded suspicion.

(3.) Learned PP has vehemently opposed the bail application. She has submitted that grant or refusal of bail is discretionary with the court and decision in each case depends upon the facts of that particular case.