Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, coupled with the fact that similarly situate and circumstanced not named/charge-sheeted co-accused Bablu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such distinguishing feature to distinguish the case of the present applicant with the case of the not named but bailed out co-accused Bablu so as to deny bail to the present applicant, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, but the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel representing first informant could point out from the record any such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (paragraph 5) , the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merit of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity.
