ORDER : S.R BRAHMBHATT, J. Heard learned advocate for the parties. 2. The applicant/accused has approached this Court by way of this successive bail application for enlarging him on bail on appropriate terms and conditions in view of the fact that the applicant/accused is in custody for a period of 9 years. 3. The applicant/accused is in custody in respect of CR. No. I-60/2007 registered with Umargam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections - 302, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 4. The main contention canvassed on behalf of the applicant/accused for seeking bail in this successive bail application being inordinate delay in trial and contribution of the complainant and prosecution in prolonging the trial. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged the Court that there were as many as 11 accused, out of which 10 accused have already been enlarged on bail and the present applicant is the sole accused in the custody, which amounts to violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the various proceedings taken-out by the complainant side has sizeably contributed in prolonging the trial as a result whereof, the petitioner is in custody without there being any pronouncement of guilt upon him. Therefore, these factors collectively may be appreciated by the Court and on any condition deemed fit by the Court, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner cited following decisions in support of his submission for enlarging the applicant/accused on bail. [1] In case of Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001) 4 SCC 355 . [2] In case of Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) G.L.H 88. [3] In case of State, CBI/Spe., New Delhi v. Pal Singh, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 247 . [4] In case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 . [5] In case of Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 23 . [6] In case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134 . [7] In case of Vivek kumar v. State of U.P, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443 . [5] In case of Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 23 . [6] In case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134 . [7] In case of Vivek kumar v. State of U.P, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443 . [8] And a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in a case of State of Kerala v. Raneef in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 7999/2010 decided on 3rd January 2011. 7. The aforesaid authorities were relied upon to support the contention on behalf of the applicant/accused that the delay in itself defeats the fundamental rights of the accused as enshrined under Constitution of India and therefore, the rule of bail is required to be applied and not the exception i.e the jail. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the earlier applications may not be a ground for rejecting the present application. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1773 of 2009 filed by the very applicant, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6th March 2009, wherein this Court observed that the rejection of that application would not come in the way of the applicant to approach the Court, in case there was an inordinate delay and other circumstances so warranted. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 24th January 2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 796 of 2013 and submitted that in that case the accused was in fact enlarged on bail on the ground that the accused therein had been in custody for a period of 7 years. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the order passed by this Court on 12th February 2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 22305 of 2015 and submitted that in that case also the accused was in fact enlarged on bail on the ground that accused therein had been in custody for a sizable period of 9 long years. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in the near future, there is no likelihood of completing the trial. 12. Application No. 22305 of 2015 and submitted that in that case also the accused was in fact enlarged on bail on the ground that accused therein had been in custody for a sizable period of 9 long years. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in the near future, there is no likelihood of completing the trial. 12. As against this, learned APP for the respondent - State contended that as per the instructions received from her counter part at the trial, the trial has commenced and therefore, now the enlargement of the applicant/accused on bail may rather have adverse impact upon the trial and on that ground also the applicant/accused may not be enlarged on bail and the application be rejected. 13. Learned APP further submitted that the learned advocate for the petitioner is not justified in contending that the trial got prolonged on account of inaction or lack of required attempt on the part of the prosecution, as the rojkam, which is placed on record would speaks in itself in which it can well be said that on number of occasions, as the accused, who have been enlarged on bail were not present, which resulted into case being adjourned and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any contribution on the part of the prosecution in trial not being conducted expeditiously. 14. Learned APP further submitted that the accused has a chequered history and if the attempts of even complainant as well as prosecutions are viewed in a proper perspective, then the Court would surely come to the conclusion that the allegations made on behalf of the applicant for prolonging the trial, have no substance. 15. 14. Learned APP further submitted that the accused has a chequered history and if the attempts of even complainant as well as prosecutions are viewed in a proper perspective, then the Court would surely come to the conclusion that the allegations made on behalf of the applicant for prolonging the trial, have no substance. 15. Learned APP has relied upon the decisions in case of Jamiruddin Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 316 and in case of Rabindra Nath Singh v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 417 for supporting her contention that the successive bail application need not be entertained unless it is making-out a change in circumstances in which the Court may come to the conclusion that on account of such change in circumstances, the bail application needs to be entertained and the contention that when the Supreme Court has in its last order i.e in the order dated 1st December 2014 in S.L.P (Criminal) No. 9228 of 2014 dismissed the matter in which the rejection of regular bail was a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court may not entertain this application, as there is no change in circumstances pleaded or established. Therefore, in her submission, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. Learned counsel for the original complainant with the permission of Court submitted that this case assumes a serious dimension as in the instant case, all along there was an attempt by the Investigating Officer and the Agencies to dilute the seriousness of offence for helping the accused. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the proceedings, which were required to be taken-out by the original complainant cannot be characterized to be an attempt to prolong the trial as they were found to be having substance and therefore this Court has also issued appropriate orders, wherein even charge was required to be re-framed by the concerned trial Court. Thus, the attempts and proceedings of the original complainant for getting justice in appropriate manner cannot be permitted to be said to be an attempt for prolonging the trial, else it would amount to permitting the agencies to dilute the matter and help the original accused, which would run counter to the interest of justice. 17. Thus, the attempts and proceedings of the original complainant for getting justice in appropriate manner cannot be permitted to be said to be an attempt for prolonging the trial, else it would amount to permitting the agencies to dilute the matter and help the original accused, which would run counter to the interest of justice. 17. Learned counsel for the complainant has invited Court's attention to the list of proceedings and petitions by way of appropriate table, which is required to be re-produced as under in verbatim. Sr. No. Date Event 1 18/06/2008 Special Criminal Application 1384/2007 was filed on date 23/07/2007 praying for transfer the investigation from Umargaon Police Station to CBI. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18/06/2008. Looking to the facts of the case, two weeks time was granted for filing the application for further investigation from the receipt of the copy of the order. 2 14/07/2008 Letters Patent Appeal No. 681/2008 was preferred challenging the order dated 18-06-2008. 3 01/07/2008. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8350/2008 in Special Criminal Application No. 1384/2007 praying for tension of time in filing the application for further investigation as per the order dated 18/06/2008, the same was withdrawn. 4 02/07/2008. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8641/2008 in Special Criminal Application No. 1384/2007 was filed seeking extension of time for making application u/s. 173(8) for further investigation before the Ld. Trial Court. The same was withdrawn. 5 04/07/2008. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8700/2008 in Special Criminal Application No. 1384/2007, vide order this application seeking extension of time was allowed, granting further time of six weeks to approach the Ld. Trial Court. 6 25/08/2008 Order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5906-5907/2008 challenging the Judgment dated 18-06-2008 passed in Special Criminal Application 1384/2007 where, initially the Honble Supreme Court has passed an order to stay the proceedings of the Fast Track Court at Valsad and Notice was issued upon respondents. 7 30/07/2009 Further order was passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5906-5907/2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, directing the Crime Branch, CID to carry out further investigation by a Sr. Rank officer nominated by D.G.P And Status Report was to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stay on trial was continued. 8 02/05/2012. 7 30/07/2009 Further order was passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5906-5907/2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, directing the Crime Branch, CID to carry out further investigation by a Sr. Rank officer nominated by D.G.P And Status Report was to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stay on trial was continued. 8 02/05/2012. Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5906-2907/2008 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide this order liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner, complainant was to request Trial Court, Valsad for further investigation. 9 02/05/2012 Special Leave to Appeal No. 6502/2011, Bail application of accused - Vijay Agarwal was rejected with liberty to move to appropriate court for grant of bail. 10 29/05/2012 Criminal Misc. Application no. 7324 of 2012 was preferred by the complainant praying for transfer of Sessions Case from Valsad to Ahmedabad or any other district. 11 16/10/2012 An application praying for further investigation was filed by the complainant as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed by the Trial Court. 12 23/10/2012 Criminal Misc. Application No. 7324 was allowed Vide order dated 23-01-2012, the Sessions case was transferred to Sessions Court, Navsari from Sessions Court Valsad. 13 07/11/2012 Criminal Revision Application no. 556 of 2012 was filed praying challenging the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for further investigation. 14 09/11/2012 Notice is issued by the Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 556 of 2012 upon the respondents, the liberty was granted to the complainant to move an adjournment application before the Trial Court. 15 12/04/2013 Criminal Misc. Application No. 17984/2012, praying for transfer of sessions Case No. 15/2008 was allowed, and transferred to Sessions Court, Navasari from Sessions Court Valsad. 16 18/10/2013 Criminal Revision Application No. 556 of 2012 was allowed by the Hon'ble Court and the Court has directed to carry out further investigation in the case and the same to be completed within a period of 90 days. 17 11/04/2014 Criminal Misc Application No. 3982/2014 in Criminal Rev. Application 556/2012 was filed by the complainant for extension of time to complete the investigation. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4318/2014 in Criminal Rev. Appli. 556/2012 was filed by the state praying for extension of time to complete the investigation as directed by the order dt. 18-10-2013. 17 11/04/2014 Criminal Misc Application No. 3982/2014 in Criminal Rev. Application 556/2012 was filed by the complainant for extension of time to complete the investigation. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4318/2014 in Criminal Rev. Appli. 556/2012 was filed by the state praying for extension of time to complete the investigation as directed by the order dt. 18-10-2013. Both the applications were allowed vide common order and further time of 180 days was granted by the Hon'ble Court. 18 26/11/2014 Criminal Misc. Application no. 18666 of 2014 in Criminal Revision Application no. 556 of 2012 was filed praying that the police official investigating the offence was not of the rank as directed by the order dated 18/10/2013. Ultimately the application was dismissed. 19 01/12/2014 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal [Criminal] no. 9228 of 2014 passed an order dismissing the application of the accused praying for bail and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. 20 09/04/2015 Criminal Misc. Application no. 485 of 2015 was filed on dt. 7/01/2015 praying for transfer of Sessions case no. 67 of 2012 from Sessions Court, Navsari to Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, the same was dismissed as earlier this Hon'ble had passed an order transferring the matter from Valsad to Navsari. 21 30/05/2015 The Ld. Trial court accepted the report submitted by the investigating officer after carrying out further investigation, as directed by this Hon'ble court vide order dt. 18-10-2013 passed in Criminal Rev. Application No. 556 of 2012 filed by the complainant. 22 04/06/2015 Special Criminal Application no. 3626 of 2015 was filed by the complainnt before this Hon'ble Court with the prayer to direct the investigating officer to submit supplementary charge-sheet against the Dy.S.P Mr. M.R Chaudhary and Mr. Girish H Patel. 23 08/06/2015. This Hon'ble issued notice in Special Criminal Application no. 3626 of 2015 and directed the State to file an affidavit regarding the progress in granting sanction to prosecute the concerned police officers. 24 08/07/2015. Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court where the charge was framed against the accused person. 25 16/07/2015 Notice is issued by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 [Framing of Charge]. 26 12/08/2015 This Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 24 08/07/2015. Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court where the charge was framed against the accused person. 25 16/07/2015 Notice is issued by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 [Framing of Charge]. 26 12/08/2015 This Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 passed and order granting liberty to the complainant to submit a draft charge and the Court may consider it in accordance with the law and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the said matter. It was also directed to the Ld. Sessions Court to decide the draft charge in accordance with law. 27 20/08/2015 A draft charge was submitted by the complainant before the Ld. Session Court as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12/08/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no. 340 of 2015. 28 16/09/2015 Criminal Misc. Application no. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal Revision application no. 340 of 2015 was filed by the complainant before this Hon'ble court praying for compliance of the order dated 12/08/2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 wherein the draft charge was permitted to be submitted by the complainant. 29 18/09/2015 This Hon'ble Court passed an order in Criminal Misc. Application no. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal Revision application no. 340 of 2015 to decide and hear the application on a date fixed by the Court concerned wherein a draft charge was submitted by the complainant before the Ld. Session Court. 30 18/09/2015 Criminal Misc. Application no. 17473 of 2015 [For Transfer] was filed by the complainant with a prayer for transfer of Sessions case from Navsari to any other Sessions Court in the State under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the police officers who are accused in the matter were transferred to Navsari. 31 04/12/2015 This Hon'ble court passed an order disposing of the Special Crim. Application No. 3626 of 2015 directing the Inspector General of Police, Woman Cell and Crime, CID Crime, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar to look into the matter forthwith and pass an appropriate order in that regard in accordance with law in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent State clarifying the fact that the report seeking sanction is st the Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. 32 22/12/2015 The Ld. Sessions Court passed an order below Ex. 107 whereby the application of draft charge was partly allowed by the Ld. Session Court and it was directed that the paragraphs of the draft charge which the ld. Session Court has approved, be added in the final charge. 33 11/01/2016 A Criminal Misc. Application no. 656 of 2016 in Criminal Misc. Application no. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal Revision Application no. 340 of 2015 was filed against the order passed by the Ld. Session Court dated 22/12/2015. The same was ordered to be converted into Criminal Revision Application no. 58 of 2016. 34 16/01/2016. The complainant filed Criminal Misc. Application no. 1309 of 2016 in Criminal Revision Application no. 556 of 2012 praying for further investigation in the matter because the investigation was not done properly as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 18/10/2013. 35 06/02/2016. A Criminal Misc. Application no. 3308 of 2016 [For Contempt of Court] was filed before this Hon'ble Court alleging the contempt of the order dated 04/12/2015 passed in Special Criminal Application no. 3626 of 2015. 36 22/02/2016 Notice is issued by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Application no. 17473 of 2015 and liberty was granted to the complainant to file an adjournment application before the Ld. Sessions Court. Matter is pending. 37 11/03/2016 This Hon'ble Court issued rule, making it returnable on date 18/04/2016 in Criminal Misc. Application no. 1309 of 2016 in Criminal Revision Application no. 556 of 2012. The matter is pending. 38 29/07/2016 This Hon'ble Court passed an order in Criminal Revision application no. 58 of 2016 in Criminal Misc. Application no. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal revision Application No. 340 of 2015 passed an order, whereby it was directed to the ld. Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law. Order dt. 22/02/2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17473 of 2015 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court, while passing the said order. 39 16/08/2016 This Hon'ble Court issued notice upon the respondents in Criminal Revision Application no. 58 of 2016 making it returnable on 16/08/2016. 40 16/08/2016. The Contempt application being Criminal Misc. Application no. 3308 of 2016 [For Contempt of Court] in Special Criminal Application no. 3626 of 2015 is not pressed when the statement of the Ld. 39 16/08/2016 This Hon'ble Court issued notice upon the respondents in Criminal Revision Application no. 58 of 2016 making it returnable on 16/08/2016. 40 16/08/2016. The Contempt application being Criminal Misc. Application no. 3308 of 2016 [For Contempt of Court] in Special Criminal Application no. 3626 of 2015 is not pressed when the statement of the Ld. APP was recorded regarding the grant of sanction for prosecution of the two police officers involved in the offence. 41 26/08/2016. Criminal Misc. Application NO. 20764 of 2016 in Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 2016 was filed for modification of order Dt.29/07/2016 and this Hon'ble Court has passed an order dt. 26/08/2016 wherein it is observed that “……However, the trial court shall proceed further to examine other witnesses who are nowhere concerned with the crime, subject to any other order by any other court including order dt.22/02/2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17473 of 2015 (For transfer)….” 18. Learned counsel for the complainant also supplied the copies of the orders in the proceedings to indicate as to when and how the events have developed in the matter, which according to him could not be attributed to the complainant so as to saddled him with allegations of unnecessarily or unduly prolonging the trial. In fact, the orders passed by this Court on number of occasions would clearly indicate that the complainant was in fact constrained time and again to move the Court for seeking appropriate order and direction. 19. Against the aforesaid backdrop of the matter, the Court is called-upon to exercise discretion in the successive bail application for enlarging the applicant-accused on regular bail. The decisions cited at the bar on behalf of the advocates pertaining to the facts of the individual cases and the ratio is required to be applied directly on the similarity of the facts in the case on hand. The Court has already observed hereinabove that the applicant-accused has filed many successive bail applications, details whereof are as under. (i) The first application in point of time being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12096 of 2007 so far as this Court is concerned came to be withdrawn, as could be seen from the order dated 17th October 2007. (ii) The second bail application in this Court appears to have been filed being Criminal Misc. (i) The first application in point of time being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12096 of 2007 so far as this Court is concerned came to be withdrawn, as could be seen from the order dated 17th October 2007. (ii) The second bail application in this Court appears to have been filed being Criminal Misc. Application No. 13628 of 2007, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19th December 2007. In this order, this Court was constrained to record the reasons in paragraph no. 2 and 3, which may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “2. This court is unable to accept the submission of Shri. Amin for the applicant and therefore accused applicant is not deserved to be enlarged on bail for the following reasons: (i) There is strong prima facie case as it shows from the evidence available on record that the involvement of the applicant can not be ruled out in the incident. (ii) The blood stains found on the clothe of the applicant accused has been recovered and that also clearly go to show that the applicant prima facie appears to have been involved in connection in the offence. (iii) Moreover the rod which is used as weapon for inflicting injury on the head of the deceased is also recovered in the recovery panchnama. 3. These are the strong prima facie evidences leading to indicate unequivocal involvement of the present applicant accused who was lastly seen together with the deceased by witness Mr. Krishnarai Bengali. On this count also applicant's involvement in serious offence can not be ruled out. This Court therefore is not inclined to entertain the application of the applicant for bail. Accordingly this application is rejected. Notice discharged.” (iii) The third application seems to be filed being Criminal Misc. Application No. 4911 of 2008, which appears to have been withdrawn by the applicant as could be seen from the order dated 26th June 2008. (iv) The fourth application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1773 of 2009 was taken-out by the applicant, which also was required to be rejected for the reasons stated in the order. While rejecting the same also, the Court had to made following observations in paragraph nos. 3 and 4, which are required to be extracted hereunder as they would indicate the reasons weigh with the Court for rejecting the bail application. “3. While rejecting the same also, the Court had to made following observations in paragraph nos. 3 and 4, which are required to be extracted hereunder as they would indicate the reasons weigh with the Court for rejecting the bail application. “3. The sole ground pressed into service for seeking regular bail in this successive bail application is possibility of prolonging of trial as the original complainant filed petition before this Court being Special Criminal Application No. 1384 of 2007 for seeking transfer of investigation of complaint being I.CR No. 60 of 2007 registered with Umargaon Town Police Station. Though this Court did not grant the same but permit the applicant to make appropriate application seeking further investigation before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. AS per the submission of Shri Barot for the applicant, the complainant moved the Apex Court by filing SLP (Cri.) No. 5906-5907 of 2008 challenging the order this Court (Coram: Ms. H.N Devani, J.) dated 18.6.2008, wherein, the Apex Court has issued notice and in the meantime, further proceedings before the Fast Track Court, Valsad, Gujarat have been stayed. As per the say of Shri Barot for the applicant, the stay is continuing till date and on account of this stay, the trial is likely to be prolonged and therefore, this successive bail application is preferred. 4. This Court is of the considered view that merely prolonging of trial in itself would not be a sufficient cause for allowing the successive bail as it would not constitute a sufficient change warranting exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant for enlarging him on bail in light of the ratio laid down in case of GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 2008 (3) GLR p.2192, in heinous crime, the bail cannot be granted merely on account of likelihood of prolonging of trial. In the instant case, the period cannot be said to be so large as to termed it to be ‘prolonging of trial’. Moreover, it deserves to be noted at this stage that so far as nature of evidence and involvement of the applicant is concerned, this Court has elaborately discussed the same in earlier order rejecting the application on 19.12.2007 being Criminal Misc. Application No. 13628 of 2007.” 20. In this order, in paragraph no. Moreover, it deserves to be noted at this stage that so far as nature of evidence and involvement of the applicant is concerned, this Court has elaborately discussed the same in earlier order rejecting the application on 19.12.2007 being Criminal Misc. Application No. 13628 of 2007.” 20. In this order, in paragraph no. 5, while parting, this Court did observe that rejection of this application may not come in the way of the applicant to approach the Court for bail in case indeed there is an inordinate delay and other circumstances warranting filing of such application. (v) One more application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 7645 of 2009 came to be filed, which was required to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14th July 2009 in which the Court in paragraph no. 3 had to observe as under:- “3. This Court is unable to accept the submission canvased on behalf of the applicant for the simple reason that when the applicant is alleged to have been involved in a serious heinous crime, and very committal of crime and the method there of go to show that in case if the conviction is ordered, then, there is all the likelihood of serious punishment to follow. The complainant has been all along agitating before this Court and before the Apex Court that the offences will need more investigation and the Apex Court has found some substance in his plea hence issued notice. In view of this, the applicant who has been said to have committed murder in the initial stage, certainly not entitled to be enlarged on bail.” (vi) One more application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 3386 of 2011 came to be filed by the applicant. However, while rejecting the same, this Court on 1 April 2011 passed elaborate order, relevant portion whereof needs to be reproduced as under:- “14. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties. This being successive bail application, the Court is to bear-in-mind the observations of the Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Thus the submission of learned advocate for the applicant are to be examined from the angle of change of circumstance. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties. This being successive bail application, the Court is to bear-in-mind the observations of the Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Thus the submission of learned advocate for the applicant are to be examined from the angle of change of circumstance. The change is pleaded to be achieved in the allegation against the accused, namely earlier the accused was shown to be the sole responsible person for commission of offence whereas now after supplementary chargesheet he is shown to be part of the larger conspiracy attributed on as many as seven accused. The supplementary charge and the investigating officer's assessment of evidence and his version for resisting the affidavit is, in my view not sufficient to whittle down the earlier reasoning of this Court. The fact requires to be noted that earlier the applicant had filed following applications:- (1) Cri. Misc. Application No. 12096 of 2007 (2) Cri. Misc. Application No. 13628 of 2007 (3) Cri. Misc. Application No. 4911 of 2008 (4) Cri. Misc. Application No. 1773 of 2009 (5) Cri. Misc. Application No. 7645 of 2009 And these many orders have been passed. When the Court has considered it from all the aspects, the advocate for the complainant is not incorrect in submitting that the investigating officer's affidavit in resisting the application of Shri Basia should not weigh with the Court. The said affidavit is not forming part of the chargesheet papers. Whereas serological report forming part of chargesheet as on date go to show that the involvement of the accused can not be ruled out. When there are serious allegations against police officers and when they have been shown to be accused and when supplementary chargesheet was required to be filed, tampering with the evidence is absolutely established. The Court hasten hereto to add that, this reasoning is only for considering the prayer for bail viz-a-viz the present petitioner. Thus the observations shall not be considered nor it should weigh with in any way the trial Court. The supplementary chargesheet filed go to show that tampering of serious nature for camouflaging original accused who are roped in later on is not likely to be brushed aside. Thus the observations shall not be considered nor it should weigh with in any way the trial Court. The supplementary chargesheet filed go to show that tampering of serious nature for camouflaging original accused who are roped in later on is not likely to be brushed aside. When such a situation is there, the Court is of the opinion that the discretion vested in the Court under section 439 Cr.P.C Need not be exercised in favour of the accused, and hence the bail application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.” (vii) One more application being Criminal Misc. application No. 14999 of 2013 came to be rejected vide order dated 23rd September 2013. (viii) Another application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 13927 of 2014, which was filed by the applicant was also rejected vide order dated 12th September 2014. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as under:- “7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State submitted that merely delay in trial could not be said to be a valid ground for seeking bail in a heinous offence like murder. The earlier orders, six in numbers, indicate that there was consideration on all these aspects by the Court when the Court declined bail to the applicant. This being one more attempt, the same is required to be rejected outright. The applicant has not relied upon any change of circumstances except pleading of passage of time and that in itself is not a ground valid for entertaining the application. The application may be rejected. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the submission canvassed on behalf of the State by learned APP is correct as the attempt of the applicant appears to be seeking reconsideration and/or reviewing of the earlier orders passed by this Court, which cannot be said to be a ground available for seeking bail for successive bail application. The delay is said to have occurred, as 7 years have passed by from the date of arrest but that alone cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail without any documentary evidence. The delay was on the part of prosecution cannot weigh in favour of the applicant for seeking bail when serious offence is alleged against him. The third ground is of parity. The delay was on the part of prosecution cannot weigh in favour of the applicant for seeking bail when serious offence is alleged against him. The third ground is of parity. Unfortunately except making submission on the ground, no other evidences or documents were brought on record to indicate that there were circumstances in favour of those, who were granted bail. 9. The Court is of the considered view that the application, being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is rejected accordingly.” (ix) The applicant's application before the Supreme Court for bail did not yield any result as the following would indicate that the applicant did approach the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Cri.) No. 3531 of 2010, which came to be withdrawn, as could be seen from the following order passed on 30th August 2010 by the Supreme Court. “Mr. HA. Raichura, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn as he wants to file a fresh application for bail before the trial court. If such a bail application is made before the trial court, the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the pendency of SLP (Cri.) Nos. 5906-5907 of 2008 before this Court.” (x) There was one more application filed by the original complainant being S.L.P (Cri.) No. 6502 of 2011, in which on 2nd May 2012 the following order came to be passed. “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to move the appropriate Court for grant of bail. Permission sought for is granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” (xi) There was one more application filed by the applicant being Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 9228 of 2014, which was also came to be dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial vide order dated 1st December 2014, the said order is reproduced as under:- “Dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.” 21. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.” 21. After setting-out the orders and the relevant portion thereof, it would not be out of place to refer to the proceedings and orders passed by this Court, as the original complainant's counsel has in fact supplied in a tabular form the proceedings and the gist thereof, wherefrom it emerges that the complainant had to move the Court for seeking appropriate direction on number of occasions. In some of the proceedings Supreme Court has also granted stay as could be seen from the submission reproduced hereinabove in respect of the proceedings of S.L.P (Cri.) No. 5906-5907 of 2008 in the order dated 25th August 2008. The order is extracted hereinbelow for the ready reference. “Application for exemption from filing O.T is allowed. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. In view of the letter dated 22.8.2008, the petitioner is permitted to file better translated copies of the documents. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Fast Track Court, Valsad, Gujarat shall remain stayed.” 22. The order of the Supreme Court dated 30th July 2009 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).5906-5907 of 2008 is also needs to be taken into consideration as in that order the Supreme Court had issued direction to the Crime Branch C.I.D to carry-out further investigation by senior officer. The said order is extracted hereinbelow. “Having heard Mr. Ray, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Yashank P. Adhyaru on behalf of the respondent-State, for the time being, we direct that further investigation should be carried out by the Crime Branch i.e CBCID under the supervision of a senior rank officer especially nominated by the Director General of Police. The CBCID shall investigate the matter afresh and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months. List thereafter. The investigating officer nominated by the Director General of Police shall record the statements of the petitioner and give an opportunity to him to point out the discrepancies. Interim order shall continue.” 23. On 2nd May 2012 while dismissing the proceedings in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).5906-5907 of 2008, the Supreme Court reserved a liberty to the petitioner - original complainant for making appropriate request to the concerned for further investigation. Interim order shall continue.” 23. On 2nd May 2012 while dismissing the proceedings in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).5906-5907 of 2008, the Supreme Court reserved a liberty to the petitioner - original complainant for making appropriate request to the concerned for further investigation. It is required to be noted that the complainant had to file Criminal Misc. Application No. 7324 of 2012 in the year 2012 for seeking transfer of the Sessions Case from Valsad to Ahmedabad or any other District. 24. The original complainant had also filed proceedings for seeking further investigation as liberty reserved by the Supreme Court. It is required to be noted at this stage that in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 7324 of 2012, this Court under order dated 23rd October 2012, directed to transfer the case from Valsad to Navsari. The relevant part thereof is required to be reproduced as under:- “10. Therefore, without any further elaboration and considering the submissions as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also other papers, it would be desirable and in the interest of justice, if the trial of Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 is shifted from Sessions Court, Valsad to Sessions Court, Navsari, which shall take care of the apprehension voiced by learned Counsel Shri Mukul Sinha for the Applicant. 11. Therefore, the present Criminal Misc. Application deserves to be allowed to the aforesaid extent and the Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 pending before the Sessions Court, Valsad is ordered to be transferred to Sessions Court, Navsari forthwith. R&P of Sessions Case be transferred by the Sessions Court, Valsad to Sessions Court at Navsari forthwith. Necessary arrangement may be made for transferring of the case papers as well as for conduct of the trial, in accordance with law on merits.” 25. The original complainant's counsel contended that a Criminal Revision Application No. 556 of 2012 was filed challenging the rejection of the application for further investigation in which on 9th November 2012, this Court passed an order which is required to be reproduced as under:- “Notice returnable on 3/12/2012. In the meantime, it will be open for the applicant to submit application for adjournments with a request to the concerned Judge to adjourn the matter in view of the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application, which shall be considered by learned Judge accordingly. In the meantime, it will be open for the applicant to submit application for adjournments with a request to the concerned Judge to adjourn the matter in view of the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application, which shall be considered by learned Judge accordingly. Direct service is permitted.” 26. It is pertinent to note that there was one more case being Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008, which had to be transferred along with the Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 and accordingly the same was required to be transferred. 27. It is required to be noted that vide order dated 18th October 2013, this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 556 of 2012 directed to carry-out further investigation. The said order is required to be reproduced as under:- “1. Heard Ld. Advocates Ms. Corin Christie with Mr. Rajesh Mankad for the petitioner, Mr. MG Nanavati, Ld. APP for respondent no. 1, Mr. RM Parmar for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Amit N Chaudhary for the respondent No. 13, who states that he will file Vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Mr. P B Khambholja for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and Mr. Shah for Mr. Hardik H Dave for the Respondent Nos. 10 to 12. 2. Petitioner has filed this Revision Application challenging the judgment and order dated 16.10.2012 by the Sessions Judge, Valsad below Exhibit 45 in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 wherein petitioner has prayed for further investigation by independent higher police officer pursuant to the direction by the Honourable Supreme Court. The matter has been dragged upto the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner has preferred one Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos. 5906-5907 of 2008 before the Honourable Supreme Court for independent investigation, wherein though Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Honourable Apex Court by an order dated 02.05.2012, the Apex Court has reserved liberty of the petitioner to request the trial Court for further investigation, if need arises. Pursuant to such order the Honourable Apex Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions and thereby such dismissal was practically in form of withdrawal of Special Leave Petitions with permission to move the trial Court for further investigation. Before granting such permission practically the Honourable Apex Court has issued several directions and call for action taken report from the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat. Before granting such permission practically the Honourable Apex Court has issued several directions and call for action taken report from the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat. As much as 8 such reports were filed before the Honourable Apex Court and Honourable Apex Court has also asked the investigating ageny to produce translated copy of statement after submission of action taken report. However, when petitioner has approached the trial Court by an application at Exhibit 45 on 17.05.2012 for direction to continue further investigation through some higher rank police officer, by impugned judgment and order the Sessions Court has rejected such application. 3. Petitioner has produced several documents on record to show that investigation by the investigating agency is not proper, alleging that it happened because some of the accused are from the police department. 4. Respondent No. 1 State has filed a detailed report negativating such allegations and disclosing the factual details as well as development in investigation. 5. Considering the provisions of Sub-Section 2 of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence, applications by the accused to join them as respondent were accepted and the accused were permitted to be joined as respondents and thereby all the accused are now before the Court as respondents and they have supported the impugned order submitting that once charge-sheet is filed, further investigation cannot be allowed. 6. The additional affidavit against 9 accused has been filed on 17.07.2007 The allegations in the charge-sheet is regarding conspiracy of committing murder of two persons and to destroy the evidence of crime by the accused who are builder, press reporters, doctor as well as police officers. The record shows that at least one of the police officer namely Mr. Girishbhai H Patel was not arrested till he was in service and was shown as absconded with another accused namely Mr. Maheshbhai R. Chaudhary. Said police officer who was shown as absconder was able to get anticipatory bail after his retirement because now he has no option but to appear before the Court. Girishbhai H Patel was not arrested till he was in service and was shown as absconded with another accused namely Mr. Maheshbhai R. Chaudhary. Said police officer who was shown as absconder was able to get anticipatory bail after his retirement because now he has no option but to appear before the Court. It cannot be ignored that on perusal of the available record, there are several contradictions in the action taken report which was filed before the Honourable Apex Court. It is also found that Mr. Girishbhai H. Patel is disclosed as an accused, both in the action taken report as well as in the FIR. Unfortunately, he remained absconded till the date of his tuetirement. However, the fact remains that said accused namely Mr. Girishbhai H. Patel was in the police department on higher post on the date of incident. He was holding a post of Dy.S.P, Valsad, where incident was taken place. Therefore there is a reason to believe that there may be some lacuna in the investigation so as to confirm the complete chain of conspiracy amongst all accused and in searching proper evidence against all of them. 7. Thereby several serious issues are involved in the matter, which certainly requires scrutiny and consideration by further investigation so as to find out the real culprits and proper evidence to commit crime by them. To that extent allegations by the petitioner - complainant has some substance when it is argued that for one or another reason investigating agency has not taken care of the investigation in proper manner though the Honourable Supreme court has called for the action taken report on several occasions and though investigating agency might be trying to help the police officer against whom there are serious allegations by the complainant. It is also submitted that there is possibility of breach of peace and security of the present petitioner and his family members etc. since accused are powerful officers and therefore practically family of the petitioner has to migrate from one place to another place leaving their property as it is which is a subject - matter of the disputes. 8. It is also submitted that there is possibility of breach of peace and security of the present petitioner and his family members etc. since accused are powerful officers and therefore practically family of the petitioner has to migrate from one place to another place leaving their property as it is which is a subject - matter of the disputes. 8. However, considering the fairness of the respondent - State that though the Honourable Apex Court has dropped the supervision over further investigation after 8 action taken report were filed before it, they are ready to scrutinize and do further investigation in the case, since petitioner is not satisfy with the investigation and with a view to see that cogent evidence against proper accused is collected so as to confirm the conviction of the real culprits. However, State has denied the allegations against the investigating agency or its officers. 9. Whereas, all original accused being respondent No. 2 to 13 have supported impugned judgment by the Sessions Court on the ground that once charge-sheet is filed further investigation cannot be allowed and that they must be tried at the earliest, so as to prove their innocence, since pendency of this litigation can resulting into several difficulties. 10. Considering the rival submissions prima-facie, when State government has agreed for further investigation under supervision of the senior police officer and considering the fact that there are several accused and the entire set of investigation is not only lengthy but involved many legal and technical issue, at such preliminary stage, it is not advisable to scrutinize, discuss and thereby coming to such conclusion either about investigation, otherwise it would be certainly prejudice the final trial Therefore, to allow fair and free trial, discussion. on factual details and merits has been avoided. 11. But, on perusal of the record it becomes clear that the Bue is some substance in the submission by the petitioner that there is need of further investigation. 12. Though there is provision in Sub-Section 2 of Section 401 of the Code not to pass any order which is otherwise prejudice to the accused and though those accused are allowed to be joined and heard at length, the fact remains that practically it is the issue between investigating agency and the Court. 12. Though there is provision in Sub-Section 2 of Section 401 of the Code not to pass any order which is otherwise prejudice to the accused and though those accused are allowed to be joined and heard at length, the fact remains that practically it is the issue between investigating agency and the Court. Thereby, accused cannot be allowed to argued that there should not be any investigation or further and better investigation against them only because of filing of chargesheet against them. The legal position is quite clear whereby under Section 173(8) of the Code, further investigation is permitted. However, it is only with a restriction that once charge-sheet is filed investigating agency has to seek permission from the Court to continue the investigation or to carry out further investigation so as to find out cogent evidence and real culprit. 13. Therefore, though trial Court has rejected the request of further investigation when investigating agency has think it proper to further investigate in the matter in accordance with or with reference to the points raised by the petitioner with reference to the investigation, their remains nothing but to permit the investigating agency to investigate further and to file report of such investigation before the trial Court in accordance with law. 14. Other concern of the respondents - original accused is to the effect that the case is old, want of further investigation would further delay the judicial process which is nothing but harassment for them. However, if, there would be cogent evidence against proper accused by further investigation, the present respondents, who are otherwise charge-sheeted, have no right to challenge further investigation even if there may be some further evidence against their involvement. 15. Whereas so far as investigating agency is concerned, the State is worried about continuation of such request by the complainant irrespective of proper investigation by them. Therefore, though revision application is to be allowed with a direction for further investigation some checks are required. It is also submitted by the State that when petitioner is requesting to carry out further investigation by higher superior officer, though it would be under the direct supervision of some higher police officer of the rank of I.G.P or D.I.G Practically they cannot be asked to carry out all investigation on their own. 16. It is also submitted by the State that when petitioner is requesting to carry out further investigation by higher superior officer, though it would be under the direct supervision of some higher police officer of the rank of I.G.P or D.I.G Practically they cannot be asked to carry out all investigation on their own. 16. Therefore, the Revision Application is partly allowed in following terms: (1) The Impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2012 below Exhibit 45 in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 rejecting further investigation is quashed and set aside. (2) The prayer of the petitioner for further investigation is allowed. Thereby, State has to further investigate the offence pursuant to FIR I - CR No. 60 of 2007 of Umargaon Police Station. (3) Such investigation is to be carried out under direct supervision of Mr. R.V Jotangia, I.G.P, State of Gujarat. Mr. Jotangia can take help of suitable police officer under him. (4) Further investigation shall be completed within 90 days from today and final report shall be submitted before the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 in appropriate manner in accordance with law. (5) However, request to stay the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 94 of 2007 is rejected. Thereby, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law so as to confirm the presence and availability of all the accused and to proceed further in accordance with law based upon available material on record. However, it is made clear that the trial Court will be free to take appropriate decision with reference to the order of further investigation passed in this Revision Application. Rule is made absolute to that extent. S.G SHAH, J.” 28. It may not be out of place to mention that further application for transfer the Sessions case from Valsad to Navsari being Criminal Misc. Application (For Transfer) No. 485 of 2015 was dismissed by the Court. However, in that matter, while issuing the notice, the stay was granted as could be seen from the order reproduced hereinbelow “Leave to add all the original accused as party respondents is granted. Petitioner shall join the original accused as party respondent Nos. 2 to 13. Notice returnable on 29th January 2015. Learned APP Ms. HB Punani waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Direct service qua respondent Nos. Petitioner shall join the original accused as party respondent Nos. 2 to 13. Notice returnable on 29th January 2015. Learned APP Ms. HB Punani waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Direct service qua respondent Nos. 2 to 13 through concerned Police Station is granted. In the meantime, looking to the grievance of the petitioner made in this petition, ad-interim relief in terms of para 13 (C) till the returnable date is granted.” 29. In the proceedings of Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 3626 of 2015 initiated at the behest and on behalf of complainant, the Court had passed the order on 8th June 2015, which is reproduced as under:- “Rule, returnable on 16.6.2015 Ms. Chetana M. Shah, learned APP waives services of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State. Considering the record and more particularly letter dated 20.9.2014 by the respondent to the Sessions Court, copy of which is annexed with this petition, it would be appropriate for the respondent to disclose on oath that what progress has taken place for the sanction to prosecute the concerned Police Officers. Simple copy of this order be provided to the learned APP by today itself. Direct Service is permitted.” 30. As could be seen therefrom, the supplementary charge-sheet against the Police Officer i.e Dy.S.P Mr. M.R Chaudhary and Mr. Girish H. Patel, were required to be filed. 31. The Criminal Revision Application No. 340 of 2015 was filed by the complainant. In that proceedings, there was no stay granted by this Court in its order dated 16th July 2015. This appears to have been filed for issuing appropriate direction for framing the charge or amending the charge. The Court disposed of the same under order dated 12th August 2015, operative part whereof could be read as under:- “11. For the foregoing reasons, the present Revision Application is partly allowed. The impugned order of charge dated June 09, 2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Navsari in Sessions Case Nos. 67 and 68 of 2012, though is not quashed and set aside, the trial Court is directed to be moved specifically and clearly in wake of discussion and law detailed in the foregoing paragraph 8. At this stage, the learned counsel Ms. 67 and 68 of 2012, though is not quashed and set aside, the trial Court is directed to be moved specifically and clearly in wake of discussion and law detailed in the foregoing paragraph 8. At this stage, the learned counsel Ms. Corin Christie appearing for the applicant, ensures this Court to provide a draft charge to the trial court to assist the cause before the trial Court on or before August 20, 2015, for making necessary corrections, if found required in absence of any. If such draft charge is furnished, the trial Court may take necessary assistance from the same if it deems fit. However, non-inclusion of details provided in the draft charge in wake of the accused facing trial choosing to tender written pursis of not raising any dispute with regard to error or omission in the charge, shall not be further agitated by the complainant. It is clarified that none of the observations made in the present order shall affect the rights of either of the parties, as far as the merit of the case is concerned. The Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly.” 32. It appears that the Court while framing the charge, did not reflect the amendment suggested and prayed for, which gave rise to bring in one more application in form of Criminal Misc. Application No. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal Revision Application No. 340 of 2015, which came to be filed on 16th September 2015. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18th September 2015, operative part whereof reads as under:- “…. …. Thus having heard both the sides, it is to be noted that the order of charge passed by the Sessions Court on June 9, 2015 in Sessions Case No. 67 & 68 of 2012 was not quashed and set aside by this Court; as is apparent from the order. However, in wake of discussion, applicant-complainant was to move trial Court and to produce draft charge to assist the cause before the trial Court for it to make necessary corrections, if found necessary and required. This Court had been categorical that the trial Court may seek necessary assistance from the same, if it deems fit. Non inclusion of the details may not give rise to further agitation, if there are circumstances as mentioned in the order exist. If already Application Exh. This Court had been categorical that the trial Court may seek necessary assistance from the same, if it deems fit. Non inclusion of the details may not give rise to further agitation, if there are circumstances as mentioned in the order exist. If already Application Exh. 107 is moved, the applicant herein shall make a request to the Sessions Court to hear the same and after deciding such application, the Court may proceed with the trial. Applicant-original complainant shall remain present and proceed with the matter on the day scheduled by the Sessions Court, where, both the parties shall extend full cooperation. This Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of in the above terms. Learned APP Ms. Thakore be forthwith provided a copy of this Order for its onward transmission.” 33. As could be seen from the tabular factual aspect submitted, the complainant filed one more Criminal Misc. Application being No. 17473 of 2015 on 18th September 2015 with a prayer for transfer of Sessions Case from Navsari to any other Sessions Court under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the concerned Police Officers, who were accused in the matter and who were on bail were transferred to Navsari. The same was. pending, but on 22nd February 2016, the Court passed the following order:- “Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 2nd March, 2016. Mr. J.K Shah, learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State. Let rest of the respondents, be served through the concerned police station, direct service is also permitted. Learned advocate appearing for the complainant if makes a request for adjournment before the trial Court in pending Sessions case, the same shall be considered by the concerned Court in wake of pendency of the present petition. MS SONIA GOKANI, J.” ((Emphasis supplied) 34. It may be required to mention here that in application being Special Criminal Application No. 3626 of 2015, on 4th December 2015 the Court passed an order, relevant part whereof is produced as under:- “3. It appears that as on date the matter is pending with the Inspector General of Police, Woman Cell and Crime, CID Crime, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar for the grant of appropriate sanction to prosecute the public servants who have been charge-sheeted. It appears that as on date the matter is pending with the Inspector General of Police, Woman Cell and Crime, CID Crime, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar for the grant of appropriate sanction to prosecute the public servants who have been charge-sheeted. In such circumstances referred to above, the Inspector General of Police, Woman Cell and Crime, CID Crime, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar is directed to look into the matter forthwith and pass an appropriate order in that regard in accordance with law. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merit of the matter. 4. Registry shall inform about this order to the concerned authority.” 35. It appears that the learned Sessions Court made an order below Exh.107, as it was not as per the say of the complainant in consonance with the provision of law, it was required to be assailed in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 656 of 2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17436 of 2015 in Criminal Revision Application No. 340 of 2015 and on 11th January 2016, the Court permitted the same to be converted into Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 2016. 36. In Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 2016, the Court passed an order dated 26th July 2016 that the matter deserved to be dismissed for want of prosecution on account of the absence of the counsel and observed that the trial Court shall proceed further with the trial and yadi was ordered to be sent to the trial Court and Court adjourned the matter to 29th July 2016. 37. In the order dated 29th July 2016’, the Court observed that it was clarified that there was no stay order in the trial and trial Court shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and yadi was ordered to be sent immediately. 38. On 26th August 2016 in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application (For Modification of Orders) No. 20764 of 2016 in Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 2016, the Court passed an order, which reads as under:- “Draft amendment submitted by the petitioner is allowed, which is to be taken on record. The draft amendment is basically nothing but previous orders passed by different Courts and/or authorities. It seems that though Mr. M. R. Chaudhari and Mr. G. H. Patel are initially shown as accused and amongst them Mr. The draft amendment is basically nothing but previous orders passed by different Courts and/or authorities. It seems that though Mr. M. R. Chaudhari and Mr. G. H. Patel are initially shown as accused and amongst them Mr. G. H. Patel is shown as absconded, though he is police officer, the prosecution has shown them as witness and examined one Mr. M. R. Chaudhari whereas, as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner, the examination of Mr. G H. Patel is on going before the Sessions Court. It is also clear and obvious that by an order dated 16.08.2016 by the division bench in Criminal Misc. Application (For Contempt of Court) No. 3308 of 2016 that sanction for prosecution of these two officers is now accorded and, therefore, they would be tried as an accused in the same case. In view of such fact, it would not be appropriate to continue the examination of these two persons as witnesses. Therefore, the Sessions Court shall postponed the examination of Mr. M.R Chaudhari and Mr. G. H. Patel. However, the trial Court shall proceed further to examine other witnesses who are no where concerned with the crime, subject to any other order by any other Court including order dated 22.02.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application (For Transfer) No. 17473 of 2015. Respondent is directed to keep the Investigating Officer present on 30.08.2016 without fail. List on 30.08.2016 Direct Service TODAY is permitted. Simple copy of this order be provided to learned APP on today.” 39. The aforesaid narration and factual backdrops as it is stated hereinabove, indisputedly indicate that this trial and the offence in respect whereof the applicant is in the custody has a chequered history. The proposition canvassed on behalf of the applicant at the bar qua delay and delay of nine years would ordinarily weigh in favour of the accused, who has been languishing in custody without there being any sufficient reason for bringing of the trial. But, the question arises as to whether in the backdrops of the factual aspect detailed hereinabove, persuade this Court to weigh these aspects alone for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. 40. The proposition of law qua delay in trial being one of the factor for considering the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant in a given case cannot be disputed by anyone. 40. The proposition of law qua delay in trial being one of the factor for considering the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant in a given case cannot be disputed by anyone. But, in the instant case, while dealing with the earlier successive bail applications, when this Court has categorically observed that delay alone can never be pleaded as a ground for exercising discretion in favour of the accused, especially when the accused is in custody in respect of heinous offence of murder and the methodology of murder and the aftermath thereof need to be examined in its proper perspective. 41. The Court is called-upon to examine this application when the Supreme Court has in fact dismissed the regular bail application, as could be seen from Supreme Court's order dated 1st December 2014 in S.L.P (Criminal) No. 9228 of 2014, which is reproduced hereinabove in paragraph no. (xi). In that view of the matter, when the Supreme Court was rejecting the bail application by the order of dismissal of S.L.P (Criminal) No. 9228 of 2014, there was already ground of delay available to the applicant, which appears to have not been accepted by the Supreme Court. The period passed thereafter, is not merely a period which could be said to be a period without any events. The narration of the factual aspects hereinabove conclusively indicate that the complainant is all along endeavoring for arresting or restricting the plausibility of any laxity in the prosecution and in the said process if he is constrained to bring proceedings as permissible under the law, can those attempts be classified to be an attempts to thwart the trial and can those attempts be classified to be attempts for prolonging the custody of the accused. The answer would be in emphatic ‘No’, as the attempts of the complainant in bringing in those applications, taking-out the proceedings are also part and parcel of the system in which now the right and grievances of the victim and his family members have been duly acknowledged and appreciated. The answer would be in emphatic ‘No’, as the attempts of the complainant in bringing in those applications, taking-out the proceedings are also part and parcel of the system in which now the right and grievances of the victim and his family members have been duly acknowledged and appreciated. In this scenario, when the complainant's attempts to vigilantly pursue the course of justice and create a way for avoiding any possible infraction in the course and when the Court has also at times granted some orders, which would indicate that those proceedings and applications taken-out by the complainant were not frivolous so as to brush them aside, this Court will have to hold that the complainant or his attempts cannot be classified or designed as for prolonging the custody of the accused or prolonging the trial so as to give a ground for bail to the accused in the custody. The Court reiterated at the cost of repetition that ordinarily in a given case the period of nine years would have surely weighed with the Court in exercising the discretion in favour of the applicant-accused, but in the instant case, the peculiar facts, which have narrated hereinabove betrays that there is somehow or the other, attempts at some quarter to thwart and/or derail the proceedings from its correct path and therefore, the orders cited hereinabove issued by this Court, would indicate that the Court has endeavor in passing the orders to see to it that the concerned are brought to the book namely the investigating officers of the rank of even Dy.S.P 42. In light of this background, the delay alone, which is pleaded for urging the Court to exercise discretion is not so gross and deliberate as to out-way the other consideration or reasonings indicated by this Court in earlier orders and hence, the Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 43. As a result thereof, the application fails and is hereby rejected.