stands sufficiently explained. The case of present applicant is similar and identical to other charge sheeted but bailed out accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, case of present applicant could be so distinguished from other charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of coaccused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The Police Report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applciant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. A sum of Rs. 26 Lakhs belonging to deceased was recovered from applicant. Moreover the applicant has criminal history of 28 cases. Applicant is a habitual offender. Criminality committed by charge sheeted accused is joint and common. Therefore, same is incapable of separation or segregation. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall again commit similar offense. On the cumulative strength of above, they vehemently submit that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
