Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD both the sides.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioners' prayer for bail has been earlier rejected in BA No. 6432 of 2002 by one of the erstwhile Benches of this Court and by that very order one Kesho Mandal was granted bail. This bail petition has been renewed on the ground that from the subsequent statement of the informant (Annexure -2) a clear indication has come that Kesho Mandal had also fired on the mouth of the deceased and since there is direct allegation against Kesho Mandal and he has been released on bail therefore the case of the petitioner is on similar footing consequently they deserve bail. Other plea is that the place of occurrence has changed. The learned Counsel for the State has opposed the bail. When the prayer for bail of these petitioners was rejected earlier and Kesho Mandal was granted bail (supra), the FIR appears to be the only material available before the Court for granting bail to Kesho Mandal as there was no specific allegation against him. The bail is considered on the materials available on record on a particular point of time and if subsequently some other materials do come though it could be against the accused, but as at the time of granting the bail these did not exist, it cannot be used unless there is occasion for cancellation of bail.
(3.) THE question now is, in such a situation whether this can be said that both the accused are similarly situated to that of the petitioner who has been earlier granted bail on the material available on the record? In my opinion it will not make the case of these petitioners equal to that of Kesho Mandal as at that relevant time when he was released on bail no such materials were available on the record against him.;