The court emphasized that absence of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence justified granting bail.

1. The present application is filed under S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No. I150 of 2019 registered with Jamnagar City \"C\" Division Police Station, Dist.; Jamnagar for the offences punishable under S.302, S.323, S.504, S.147, S.148 and S.149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP for the respondent State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that prior to the offence, in the first incident where the scuffle was taken place between he complainant and accused side and he had made a telephone to other two accused and call them to interfere in the dispute. That the complainant and the deceased had gone to the lorry of the present applicant for breakfast where first part of the present offence was taken place and scuffe was made. At the time of first incident, one person namely Jitu Makwana caught hold the deceased and shouted abuses and scuffed with the deceased and called Rafik then they came into Alto car with sword and knife and shouted abuses and scuffled with the deceased. It is also placed on record that the present applicant is abater and prima facie connected with the commission of offence. As applicant is involved in serious offence, no lenient view can be taken by this Court in enlarging him on bail. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present application.

4.I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

6. Having gone through the chargesheet papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent State, it appears that as per the prosecution case incident taken place in two parts. First part of the offence was at lorry of applicant where exchange of words were made between accused persons and complainant and in second part near petrol pump, said unfortunate incident was taken place. It also appears from the contents of the complaint that in the first part in presence of the present applicant some hot exchange of words were made between the parties. Applicant is running his lorry of breakfast. In a second part he was not present at the place of incident.

7. This Court has gone to the statements of eye witnesses namely Hiteshbhai Pratapbhai Pataliya, Girdharbhai Keshubhai Makwana and Vivekbhai Ghanshyambhai Lamba recorded by investigating officer during the course of investigation. None of them have stated in their statements before the Investigating officer involving the present applicant in committing the offence. Applicant was not present at the time of actual offence of assault made by other coaccused. No weapon was recovered or discovered from the present applicant. In an Identification Parade also, name of the present applicant was never disclosed by the persons who were present at the time of incident. This Court has also gone to the panchnama of the identification parade prepared during the course of investigation on 05.12.2019. Considering the entire chargesheet papers and as his presence was never disclosed in committing murder of the deceased by assaulting or exchanging hot words by the present applicant to the complainant. This Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
Hence, the p