JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I. H. Saiyed with learned Advocate Ms. Zeal H. Shah for the applicant, learned APP Mr. J. K. Shah for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. R. J. Goswami with learned Advocate Ms. Punita H. Joshi for the first informant.

2. This successive application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for being released on regular bail in connection with F.I.R. being C.R. Part-A No.11191030200061 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station (West), Ahmedabad City, on 03.11.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 120(B), 406, 294(B), 506(2), 328, 362 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Indian Passports Act.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant had originally preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 18132 of 2021 for being released on regular bail and vide order dated 04.02.2022, this Court had permitted the applicant to withdraw the said application with liberty to approach this Court as and when new cause of action arises or the evidence of the prosecutrix is recorded in the trial, whichever is earlier.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the first informant had raised the preliminary objection as regards the aspect that as per the order dated 04.02.2022, the evidence of the prosecutix is yet not recorded and only cause which is arising with the applicant is that the co - accused of the applicant has been released on bail vide order dated 24.06.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2043 of 2022. He has submitted that only on the ground of parity this application is filed, which cannot be entertained. He has also raised another preliminary objection that applicant has not approached the Sessions Court for regular bail before filing present application and therefore, present application is not maintainable.

5. Having regard to both the preliminary objections by learned advocate Mr. Goswami, in the opinion of this Court, co - accused of this offence has been granted bail by the Co - Ordinate Bench of this Court on. I do agree that law of parity cannot be applied without examining role of each of the accused. As such in the present case, all the accused have alleged to be committed an offence under Section 376(D), 120(B), 406, 294(B), 506(2), 328, 362 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal Code, so there is no question of bifurcation of role of each accused and on that count this Court can examine the bail application in the light of the fact that co - accused has been granted bail by the Co - Ordinate Bench. As regards other contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Goswami, charge sheet is already filed way back. The last application after the filing of the charge sheet before the Sessions court which was rejected. After that applicant has approached this Court and subsequently the application was withdrawn with a liberty reserved in favour of the applicant to approach this Court in case new cause of action arise. Under that circumstances, if without approaching the trial Court if the applicant has filed an application which cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, both the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Goswami cannot sustained.

6. It is to be noted that this Court passed an order that as and when new cause of action arises or the evidence of prosecutrix is recorded, whichever is earlier, applicant is at liberty to file fresh application.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Goswami has also raised contention that the order of the Co - Ordinate bench on 24.06.2022 has been challenged by the first informant before the Apex Court and it is pending to be heard. As such the hearing of the present application may be deferred.

8. Against which, learned senior advocate Mr. Saiyed has submitted that order of rejection of interim bail, matter went upto Apex Court vide IA No.99673 of 2022 and as per the order dated 29.07.2022, present bail application was r