Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Nanu Ram alias Ram Swaroop, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.
(2.) His learned counsel has contended which could not be controverted by the learned PP that co-accused Mst. Manju wife of deceased late Gopal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.9.2005, in view of the fact that the parties have come to home out of court on the basis of the affidavits filed by Mst. Rama Devi, Ramchandra and Mangla Ram denying the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences and bis illicit relations with Manju Devi. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely entangled in this case. The report of the F.S.L. has yet not been received despite repeated efforts made by the trial court as a result of which the trial is held up for no fault of the petitioner. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offences. The petitioner may, therefore, be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. It is further submitted that there was a property dispute between the deceased and his brother Ramnarain. Subhash had come to the house of the deceased in the midnight of 22.4.2005. He took him to Ramnarain saying that he was calling him to sort out the aforesaid land dispute, it ultimately submitted that at best incriminating circumstance exist against Subhash and Ramnarain and not against present petitioner.
(3.) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, but having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against him, the materials on record and the fact that similarly situated co-accused Mst. Manju Devi has already been enlarged on bail and the parties have come to terms out of court, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.;