ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli appearing on behalf of the original complainant.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 185/2016 registered with Ramol Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 114, 120(B), 201 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the G.P.Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Jigar Patel for the complainant have vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having perused the documents on record including FIR and charge-sheet papers, this Court is disinclined to consider this application for the following reasons:-

i. The primary aspect which dissuades this Court from allowing the present application is the fact that the present applicant had originally approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No.9755/2018 and whereas, vide an order dated 04.10.2018, the applicant had chosen to withdraw his application.

ii. Thereafter, the applicant had approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No.15235/2019 and whereas, vide a reasoned order dated 01.10.2019 a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the said application. The learned Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that the offence was very serious inasmuch as the same being punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and whereas, the learned Coordinate Bench was also prima facie clear about the role of the present applicant inasmuch as the present applicant was the one who has allegedly given a fatal blow upon the deceased. Perusing order dated 01.10.2019, it also appears that the learned Coordinate Bench had discussed the evidence against the present applicant and had rejected the application as noticed hereinabove while observing as regards the role of the present applicant.

iii. It would appear that the present applicant has preferred this application inter alia on the ground that after the year 2019, two of the co-accused namely one Dharmsinh @ Dhamo and Pratik Desai had been released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Court. In that regard, it would be relevant to refer to observation of the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1133/2026 more particularly order dated 17.02.2026 passed thereupon, which is impugned in the present application, where the learned Sessions Court has distinguished the role attributed to the present applicant as against the role attributed to the co-accused who had been considered by learned Predecessor Judge of the learned Sessions Court which had rejected the application.

iv. As far as co-accused Dharmsinh @ Dhamo is concerned, it has been observed by the learned Ses