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 and coupled with the fact that the case of the named/charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused Boby is clearly distinguishable from other two named/charge-sheeted accused Akash (applicant herein) and Satish, inasmuch as, the said co-accused has not been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased and the injured as such the case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from above-mentioned named/charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused, in view of above no parity can be claimed by the applicant with the bail order of co-accused Boby, the medical evidence clearly goes to show that the deceased has sustained several injuries on his body, the criminality committed by the named/charge-sheeted accused except co-accused Boby is joint and common therefore, the same is incapable of separation and segregation, as such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant therefore, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present application for bail, this Court finds that no good and sufficient ground is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.
