JUDGMENT :

A.J. Shastri, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regular bail is sought by the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-69 of 2017 registered with Dhrangadhra Police Station, Surendranagar for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that considering the nature of the offence and the allegations which are attributed, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, more particularly when learned advocate Mr. Popat has pointed out few orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court indicating that in almost of similar role, co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail. In addition to that, Mr. Popat has pointed out that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 22199 of 2021 also, the Coordinate Bench recently on 24.1.2022 was pleased to enlarge the said accused on regular bail, who, according to the prosecution, was absconding. Whereas, the present applicant is very much in judicial custody and in addition thereto, it is pointed out that in Narco analysis, which was undertaken over the applicant, it is revealed that this applicant was very much present at his shop and for that purpose, he has made a reference to the report, reflecting on page 44. Mr. Popat has further pointed out that in this complaint, not only the co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail but, even in cross-complaint filed by the present applicant side, the other accused persons of the said complaint have also been enlarged on bail by various orders passed with respect to the accused persons of that complaint and as such, considering this overall situation, the request of the applicant be considered.

3. In addition thereto, learned advocate Mr. Popat has further submitted that the Coordinate Bench has considered the issue about parity and in one of the decisions, it has been mentioned that though the case was not made out, on applying the principle of parity, the Court was pleased to grant regular bail to one of the co-accused person. The order is also referred to by learned advocate which is reflecting on page 66 passed by the Coordinate Bench on 30.6.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6420 of 2021 and as such, has submitted that considering the overall situation prevailing now, the case of the applicant for regular bail be considered. It has further been pointed out that after release of all those co-accused persons of both the sides, efforts have been made by senior members of both these communities of the local area to resolve the dispute and there are reflections to the effect that an amicable solution be arrived at and for that, even the Coordinate Bench has also taken note while passing the order dated 24.1.2022. In addition to this, Mr. Popat has stated under instruction that the applicant is also inclined to abide by all the conditions which are mentioned with respect to the other two co-accused persons who are granted regular bail and for which he is inclined to file even an undertaking in addition to the conditions which may be imposed by this Court.

4. Leaned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave appearing on behalf of the prosecution has submitted that in view of the fact that several co-accused persons in connection with the present complaint have been enlarged on regular bail and peculiarity of the circumstance would reflect that concept of parity deserves to be considered and as such, without much resistance, has left to the discretion of the Court, more particularly when several orders have been passed with respect to the other co-accused persons.

5. In addition to the above, learned advocate Ms. Zeel Raval for Ms. Shweta Lodha appearing on behalf of the complainant has also given no much resistance rather has given tacit consent to consider the case and grant re