ORDER :

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No.03 of 2019 registered with Gadhidham Railway Police Station, Kachchh for offence under Sections 302, 120(B), 397, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, under Sections 155, 141 and 145(B) of the Indian Railways Act and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned advocate Shri J.M. Panchal for learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the applicant submits that the applicant is arraigned as accused No.2 in the supplementary charge-sheet and it was only through local newspaper that the applicant came to know that he has been implicated as an accused in the offence and immediately on his own contacted the concerned Police Officer and had expressed his willingness to extend co-operation and in fact on 09.01.2019, remained present before the Investigating Agency and till the date of arrest of applicant on 11.04.2019, had extended full co-operation. It is submitted that the conduct of the applicant therefore be appreciated in his forthwith co-operating with the Investigating Agency.

3. Learned advocate has thereafter drawn attention of this Court to the sequence of incident, wherein the deceased was done to death in a running train by two assailants who boarded the train, fired shots at the deceased and made their escape by stopping the train and with the help of their accomplices, made an escape by using a motorcycle which was later found discarded. It is submitted that the applicant is not a assailant and not even present at the place of incident. There is no Call Detail Records connecting the applicant with the assailants accused persons. It is submitted that the applicant and the accused No.1 as well as the deceased were in the same political party and were frequently in contact with each other. Therefore, the Call Detail Records if any with accused No.1 cannot be treated as a strong evidence of participation of the applicant in conspiracy.

3.1 It is submitted that the prosecution has projected the case of eliminating a political rival, but the investigation as well as the history of politics of the local area suggest that the applicant was never a political rival of the deceased and rivalry, if any, of the deceased was with accused No.1 being in one party and shifted to another and the deceased and the applicant both from the beginning, belonging to the one party and that tickets for contesting the election of the party was issued to the accused No.1 and not to the deceased and that had flared up rivalry between the two, but the applicant was never in fray. It is submitted that the statements of various witnesses go on to suggest that when the accused No.1 was trying to malign character and political life of the deceased, the applicant was person who played role to see to it that the differences are settled and to get extended had sided the deceased for benefit of his political career and therefore, there cannot be any motive attributed to applicant to make any political gain by hatching conspiracy to murder the deceased. It is submitted that the theory of the prosecution about role of the applicant is to have given financial aid however, there is no single piece of evidence to suggest that the applicant made payment of any money.

3.2 It is lastly submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet, the role of the applicant is not coming on record and it is only a perception of the Investigating Officer which is reflecting in the story given in the charge-sheet. He drew attention of this Court to the narration made in column-5 that the intention of the applicant was to work from behind the scene and provided financial assistance which is reflected from the telephonic conversation which is part of the investigation record. Now this, piece of audio clippings cannot be treated to be good evidence. Learned advocate also drew at