- (1.) M. Katju, J. A perusal of the first information report shows that brutal mur der has been committed. First chilli powder was put into the eyes of the deceased Rajesh and then the applicant and others dragged him and stabbed him several times. This version in the first information report is also corroborated by the post mortem report which shows large number of stabbing and incised wounds on vital parts.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has stated that Hon'ble S. N. Tewari, J. by order dated 21-8-96 has granted bail to co-accused Shankar whose case is on the same footing. With profound respect, I cannot agree with the order of my learned brother. In my opinion this is a case of a brutal murder and since the applicant is directly involved, it is not a fit case for bail. It is true that the practice of this Court has been that if a co-accused whose case is on the same footing is granted bail then ordinarily the applicant too is granted bail. However, in my opinion that cannot be made an absolute rule. No doubt the view of a brother judge deserves great respect, and ordinarily it should be followed, but there may be cases where the Judge cannot agree with his brother judge who granted bail to the co-accused. Take for instance a case of a daylight murder where the accused persons are named in the first information report and assigned a specific role which resulted in the death, and the medical and other evidence are corroborative of the prosecu tion version. In such a case if one judge has granted bail of a co-accused must the other judge also grant bail even if he feels that by no stretch of imagination could bail have been granted in such a case In my humble opinion the answer has to be in the negative. However, in my opinion, in such a case the other judge should refer the matter to a larger Bench if he cannot agree with his brother judge. If the larger Bench feels that by no stretch of imagination could bail have been granted in the case then it should not only reject the bail application but may also consider whether to cancel the bail of the co-accused. In my humble opinion this is necessary for the sake of uniformity, other wise there will be a grievance of discrimina tion. No doubt once bail is granted ordinari ly cancellation of bail should be done only in cases of misuse of bail, but there can be exceptions to this rule. However, I once again reiterate that ordinarily the principle of grant of bail if a co-accused whose case is on the same footing and to whom bail was granted should be followed. It is only if the second Judge feels that by no stretch of im agination could bail have been granted in the case that he should refer the matter to a larger Bench. After all a judge has to do justice, and doing justice mean also looking at the matter from the angle of the com plaint. In the present case in my humble opinion the facts of the case are so glaring and shocking that with profound respect to my learned brother I am unable to agree with his view. No reasons have been given by Hon'ble S. M. Tewari, J. for granting bail. With profound respect to my learned bro ther I am of the view that even if the reason was that two years had elapsed since the incident the ends of justice would have been served by directing expediting of the trial. Let the papers of this case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for con stituting a larger Bench to lay down guidelines as to what should be done in a case like this where bail has been granted to a co- accused, and whether in the present case (1) the bail application of the applicant should be rejected although bail has been granted to a co-accused whose case is on the same footing (2) whether bail granted to the co-accused should be cancelled. Referred to larger bench. .;