Sonia Gokani, J.

All these applications have been moved by the State questioning the orders passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 13.01.2017, granting regular bail to the respondents accused, in connection with the first information report being I-C.R. No. 79 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120 (B) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Sections 25(1)B and 27(2) of the Arms Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that a first information report came to be lodged by one Nilamben contending that her brothers, viz. Ali Hussain and Abbasbhai Pyarali and father - Pyarali Madhwani have been assaulted with sword, sickle, bill hook, gupti and shot fired with the revolver by the present applicants and Others, and therefore, three of them died, due to the injury caused by the applicants. The complainant's nephew Mehndiraja Muhammadali sustained a serious injury. This has happened due to grievances and grudges between the applicants and complainant.

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that five years before the accused respondents requested to hide their weapons in the old house of the deceased- Pyarali, which he resisted and that initiated dispute between the two sides. It is further their case that on 09.10.2016, the complainant, her sister and sister-in-law went to attend Majlish at around 7 o'clock in the evening. When women folks of the respondents drove them away and once again at 10 o'clock in the night when they went for Majlish, they were driven out. Respondents - accused were resisting the move on the part of the deceased's family to attend Majlish at Jamatkhana on the ground that the victims were outcast by community. According to the complainant, the past grudges and grudges of their being from Daudi vohra community and the respondents being Muslim, also was the ground for such animosity.

3. Chargesheet came to be filed on 29.12.2016 and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions being Sessions Case No. 1 of 2017, which is presently pending before the court of the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahuva.

4. The Investigating Officer had resisted the bail applications moved by the present applicants by a detailed affidavit before the court concerned. However, the court on the ground of principle of parity had exercised its discretion and granted bail to the present applicants and others as one of the aged accused was given regular bail by this court.

5. The prosecution is, therefore, before this court on the ground that the charges against all the accused are very serious. Three persons have been killed in the incident in question and the case of the prosecution has been supported by the eye-witnesses who have not only narrated the incident in detail, but have described the role of each one with the lethal weapon they held at the time of incident.

6. The prosecution has challenged the said order on two counts, i.e. firstly, on merits for grant on irrelevant considerations i.e. on applying principle of parity, and secondly, for being gravely deleterious to the course of justice. The request made for cancellation of bail is being examined in this backdrop of facts.

7. This court has heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Poojari for the applicant - State and Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju with Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla for the respondents-accused, at length.

8. It is vehemently urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the role played by the accused is made very clear from various documentary evidences adduced by way of the chargesheet. Even before the trial court, there has been categorical evidence clearly involving prima facie the respondents herein and yet, the trial court has wrongly applied the principle of parity to grant bail to the respondents in such serious matter. It is further urged that such an order is based on th