ORDER : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is the fourth bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. RC.7(5)2011-SC.1/CBI/New Delhi registered at Police Station C.B.I., New Delhi for offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 364, 302, 201 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The matter relates to the abduction and subsequent killing of a lady Bhanwari Devi wherein three charge-sheets were filed by the C.B.I. in quick succession to each other. A missing report was lodged by her husband Amar Chand before the Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur. Subsequently, Amar Chand registered another FIR alleging the involvement of one of the sitting MLA and a Cabinet Minister in abduction of his wife and it was also apprehended that she had been killed. The Investigation was handed over to the C.B.I. by the State Government and the first charge-sheet was filed whereby certain accused persons were arrested and forwarded to the Magistrate. The story as disclosed by the C.B.I. was that Bhanwari Devi was abducted and killed by the accused-persons for monetary considerations. The petitioner was called for interrogation by the C.B.I. on 2.12.2011 and arrested on the spot. One other accused person, namely, Mahipal Maderna was also arrested on the same date. The allegations against Mahipal Maderna were confined to a sleaze CD having explicit sex contents with the deceased and it was stated that she was murdered because of the blackmailing being done by her and by extending threats for exposing the said accused. The real elder brother of the petitioner-Paras Ram, namely Malkhan Singh was a sitting MLA (INC) from Luni Constituency, Jodhpur and subsequently, he was also arrested on the allegations that he had illicit relations over the years with the deceased and having fathered a girl child from such relations, he was being threatened by the deceased for exposing his name in the general public and as such to get rid of the threats, a conspiracy was hatched to get her killed. 3. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide detailed order on 23.08.2012. The second bail application was dismissed on 13.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine on 02.02.2016. 3. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide detailed order on 23.08.2012. The second bail application was dismissed on 13.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine on 02.02.2016. While dismissing the SLP, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the High Court after three months in case, the trial of the accused did not progress in the manner as directed by the High Court. The same reads as under:— “The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the High Court after three months in the event the trail of the accused does not progress in the manner as directed by the High Court.” 4. The directions issued by the High Court vide its order dated 08.07.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1653/2014 titled as Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sohan Lal Bishnoi as referred by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the bail application are as under:— “After arguing, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to the following:— (1) The Prosecution Agency i.e. C.B.I. will give a list of 3 witnesses per day for the number of days fixed for a particular session by the trial court. The names of the three witnesses will be specified to be called on day one, day two, day three, day four and so on of that session. (2) In case, all the said witnesses called for particular session are not examined, the said list shall lapse for that particular session. Thereafter, the C.B.I. will give a fresh list on the last day of a particular session for the next session in the same manner as stated in Clause (1) above. (3) It is clarified that the witnesses will be from the tentative list of 298 prosecution witnesses only. (4) The trial court shall as far as possible comply with the direction given by this Court on an earlier occasion to hold the trial on day to day basis. (5) In case, the cross-examination of any witness is left incomplete or deferred, the said witness will be positively called in next session of trial for completing the cross-examination. (6) The remaining three days of the ongoing session shall continue without any obstruction. The criminal misc. petition is disposed of in the above terms. (5) In case, the cross-examination of any witness is left incomplete or deferred, the said witness will be positively called in next session of trial for completing the cross-examination. (6) The remaining three days of the ongoing session shall continue without any obstruction. The criminal misc. petition is disposed of in the above terms. Both the parties are bound by the above order.” 5. The third bail application was filed in spite of the fact that there was no dispute regarding the progress of the case before the trial court in the manner as directed vide order dated 08.07.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1653/2014. Accordingly, the third bail application was dismissed on 05.09.2016 by observing as under:— “The bail application having been already dismissed by the Apex Court and the trial progressing in the manner as directed vide order dated 08.07.2014, this Court finds no ground to entertain third bail application filed by the petitioner. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 6. Hardly, 38 days had passed when the present fourth bail application was filed on 13.10.2016. Although, all the grounds raised herein were also raised before this Court in the third bail application which was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2016, the fourth bail application has been filed once again on the same grounds with the submission that earlier bail applications were not on merits. It is contended that the present bail application should be decided on merits as the first bail application which was dismissed in the year 2012, was at a pre-charge stage. While contending on merits, it was submitted that in the list of witnesses, which has been produced against the present petitioner, Indira Solanki, Rahul Trivedi, Amari Devi, Lakha Ram, Mrs. Kusum, Pappu Ram, Deva Ram and Gordhanram are the witnesses. Out of these 8 witnesses, PW-106 Aamari Devi & PW-120 Smt. Kusum as well as Kailash (PW-117) and Ramniwas Morla (PW-118) have turned hostile and do not implicate the present petitioner in any manner in any conspiracy to abduct and kill Bhanwari Devi. Other witnesses are either dropped or have said nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not carry any restrictions on preferring a successive bail application by the petitioner. Other witnesses are either dropped or have said nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not carry any restrictions on preferring a successive bail application by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the petitioner against the rejection of his second bail application in limine. As such, there is no order on merits of the case even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the dismissal of SLP does not amount to approving the stand taken by this Court in its order dated 13.01.2015. Further, the direction of the Apex Court that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after three months does not operate as a bar on the right of the petitioner to invoke the constitutional remedy flowing in through Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of merits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner went on to argue that in fact, the directions of this Court dated 08.07.2014 are being flouted and manipulated and not complied with in its letter and spirit; and that so far 53 sessions have failed. Summons were sent to 750 witnesses but in turn the prosecution could ensure only about 130 witnesses to appear in the witness box which makes out of paltry 16% turn out of the total summons issued. A witness would turn up only to leave the examination-in-chief incomplete and to be called up on several occasions spread over coming months. For example, PW-62 R.S. Dangi, PW-30 Shyam Pratap Singh, PW-94 Gop Singh, PW-72 Gautam Roy, PW-67 Shiv Chandra Mishra, PW-86 Rajiv Saxena, PW-114 Vibhor Rastogi, PW-105 Saurabh Kumar, PW-92 S.B. Ray, PW-80 Bhanwar Lal Seervi, T.D. Dogra, Himmat Abhilash Tak etc. are some such examples who have taken either months together in completing the examination-in-chief or who did not appear for cross-examination. The shocking examples is one that of Dr. Heera Lal Bairwa (PW-100), who was evading investigation in local police cases registered against him at Jaipur, did not turn up even after being called for about numerous times. Thus, the order dated 08.07.2014 is not being complied with in letter and spirit but only complied with a design of systematically delaying the trial. It was further contended that in fact, the respondent-CBI has moved an application for issuance of summons to more prosecution witnesses. Thus, the order dated 08.07.2014 is not being complied with in letter and spirit but only complied with a design of systematically delaying the trial. It was further contended that in fact, the respondent-CBI has moved an application for issuance of summons to more prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the matter is likely to take a long time. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI pointed out that the position as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not being presented correctly. The argument that almost 750 summons were issued to the witnesses hardly represents the fact that the matter is not proceeding in the manner as directed by this Court. To say that only 16% turn out of the total witnesses too is misleading. The true and factual position is that the prosecution has cited 298 witnesses in the charge-sheet. 185 witnesses have already been examined. 100 witnesses have been dropped for the reasons that they have been either won over or are not necessary. In fact, only 13 witnesses are left for examination in the trial court. 9. Heard. 10. With respect to the successive bail application, the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42 p.52 held as under:— “18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. *** But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. 19. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. 19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. 20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, are binding on the subordinate for a on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country. 21. Next question in this case is: whether in the earlier proceedings, Courts including this Court, had given a finding in regard to the existence of prima facie case against the respondent or not? 21. Next question in this case is: whether in the earlier proceedings, Courts including this Court, had given a finding in regard to the existence of prima facie case against the respondent or not? If so, has the respondent brought on record any fresh material either factual or legal so as to empower the High Court to reconsider the earlier orders?” 11. As observed above, the third bail application was dismissed while specifically noticing that it was not disputed that the trial was going on as per the direction of this Court dated 08.07.2014. This Court is dealing with the fourth bail application, which was filed after 38 days of the rejection of the 3rd bail application. Thus, it is not understood as to how the situation has changed after 38 days. Moreover, the fact remains that only 13 witnesses are left to be examined on date and all these witnesses are official and are not likely to take much time. 12. To say that the earlier bail application was not heard on merits is uncharitable. Lengthy arguments were raised on merits. This Court restrained itself from giving its opinion in detail over the merits, lest its effect the interest of either of the parties but nevertheless noticed the facts as under:— “Now, the third bail application has been filed on the ground that in spite of 100 witnesses having been examined till date, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the petitioner, whereas, learned counsel for the C.B.I. while vehemently opposing the bail referred to the various statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-4 Indira Solanki, PW-113 Rahul Trivedi, PW-148 Lakha Ram, PW-199 Pappu Ram Bishnoi, PW-211 Deva Ram and PW-223 Gordhan Ram to state that the present petitioner was the brother of the main accused and was equally upset with Bhanwari Devi; and the main accused had told present petitioner Paras Ram to do something to get rid of Bhanwari Devi. In any case, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that as on date, out of 298 witnesses, 123 witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the case has progressed in the manner as directed vide order dated 08.07.2014 and the directions are being complied with in the letter and spirit.” 13. In any case, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that as on date, out of 298 witnesses, 123 witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the case has progressed in the manner as directed vide order dated 08.07.2014 and the directions are being complied with in the letter and spirit.” 13. Once again, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the immediate family of the deceased has not supported the case of the CBI in any manner and even denied any knowledge or any relationship with the brother of the petitioner and not raised even a remote suspicion that family of the petitioner was in any manner involved or having any enmity with the deceased. No evidence has come on record which may even suggest that the petitioner or his family members did anything in the direction of hatching or executing a criminal conspiracy. It was further contended that the prosecution witness PW-30 Shyam Pratap Singh has clearly stated that CDR does not disclose as to who was the person who called up and who was the person who received the call and what transpired over such calls. The alleged call of 02.09.2011 was exchanged between the petitioner and Sohan Lal has not been established and can never be established. Further, the chain of circumstances stand broken with the statement of PW-124 Shyam Lal Paliwal and PW-128 Bheru Lal Paliwal, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. The relationship with Sohan Lal is of no consequence as the said Sohan Lal is shown as a contractor of the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Rajasthan where co-accused Mahipal Madera was a Minister and it is the case of the CBI that Sohan Lal came close to the Minister for the reason that he was holding key to the alleged sex CD involving Mahipal Maderna and Bhanwari Devi and therefore, he had started enjoying a position of importance. It was further contended that sohan Lal was allegedly acting as a contractor in PHED Department headed by Mr. Mahipal Madera and getting financially benefited from the same as stated by PW-146, PW-144, PW-138, PW-122. It was further contended that sohan Lal was allegedly acting as a contractor in PHED Department headed by Mr. Mahipal Madera and getting financially benefited from the same as stated by PW-146, PW-144, PW-138, PW-122. There is not even a phone call made by Sohan Lal to the brother of the petitioner after his arrest by his family though the brother was a sitting MLA in the ruling party at that time. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 13 to contend that the considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting bail should be the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. 15. Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 178 to say that in case, there is apprehension of the complainant that the petitioner by using his power as Member of the Legislative Assembly might interfere with the trial or try to influence the witnesses, a direction can be issued to the accused not to enter the territorial jurisdiction, except for the purpose of attending the trial. Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Nanjappa v. Union of India, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 350 to contend that having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the role attributed to the petitioner and the period already spent in jail should be taken into consideration; and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini [Death Reference Case No. 1 of 1998 (arising out of D. No. 1151 of 1998) with Criminal Appeal Nos. 321, 322, 323, 324 and 325 of 1998], decided on 11.05.1999 was referred to contend that suspicion does not take the place of proof. 321, 322, 323, 324 and 325 of 1998], decided on 11.05.1999 was referred to contend that suspicion does not take the place of proof. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Government of NCT of Delhi) v. Nitin Gunwant Shah [Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2007], decided on 16.09.2015, vide which it was held that the Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence is committed or not should bear in mind that meeting of mind is essential, mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient. 16. Looking to the gravity of the offence, this Court has already discussed the facts of the present case that the case involves the murder of Bhanwari Devi who was abducted and murdered. Her body was burnt and the ashes/remains were disposed in the Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal near Jalora village, Jodhpur in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd September, 2011. The petitioner was at one stage discharged from the charge of conspiracy, abduction and murder and only charges under Section 201 and 202 of the IPC were framed against him. However, on a revision filed by the C.B.I., the learned Single Bench of the High Court allowed the revision of the CBI and directed as under:— 14. This Court has heard the matter and also perused the record. In this case, some of the witnesses have stated that accused Malkhan Singh had given the responsibility to accused Paras Ram to eliminate Bhanwari Devi. Statement of witness Deva Ram also may be read in this regard. Similarly, witness Kusum Bishnoi states that Paras Ram was in knowledge of proposed act of murder in the morning of 2.9.2011, meaning thereby, he was knowing at that time that Bhanwari Devi is going to be killed in near future. Without being part of the conspiracy to abduction and murder, he could not have known this fact in advance. It is also on record in the statements of witnesses in this case that accused Paras Ram had exchanged the number of calls with other accused-persons of the case soon after the knowledge of existence of a Video CD of illicit relation of one accused with Bhanwari Devi, which was published in news broadcast of ETV. It is also on record in the statements of witnesses in this case that accused Paras Ram had exchanged the number of calls with other accused-persons of the case soon after the knowledge of existence of a Video CD of illicit relation of one accused with Bhanwari Devi, which was published in news broadcast of ETV. It is also on record that last call dialed by Bhanwari Devi before her death was also to Paras Ram as per prosecution story. 15. Confessional statements of accused Sahi Ram, Vishna Ram, Kailash and statements of other witnesses Shyam Lal, Deva Ram, Lakha Ram have also been ignored by the trial court. If we go through these statements, charge of abduction and murder and criminal conspiracy should have been framed against Om Prakash and Paras Ram also. If a lady was abducted by some of the accused-persons and she was then murdered by some of the accused-persons and then her body was unscrupulously disposed of by some of the accused persons, then all these accused persons should have been charged for conspiracy, abduction and murder of the lady and causing disappearance of evidence and at the stage of charge, benefit of doubt could not have been and should not have been given to any of the accused-persons S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 & other five connected revisions. 15 including Om Prakash and Paras Ram. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 stands disposed of accordingly.” 17. The role of the petitioner is apparent from the order pased in revision. The SLP filed against the revision was dismissed. Thus, the arguments that witnesses produced with respect to the role of the petitioner have been examined and that out of these witnesses, Amari Devi and Kusum Bishnoi have turned hostile, whereas, Rahul Trivedi, Deva Ram have been dropped, should be considered for grant of bail, to my mind, may not be an appropriate stage to look into the same when only 13 witnesses are left to be examined. The Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195 cancelled the bail application granted by the Chief Justice of Chhatisgarh High Court by observing that “It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195 cancelled the bail application granted by the Chief Justice of Chhatisgarh High Court by observing that “It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial.” 18. Moreover, the conspiracy hatched in secret normally has no direct evidence. The agreement amongst the conspirators is inferred, in such situation, by circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The petitioner is the brother of the main accused Malkhan Singh & Indira Devi and cousin brother of Sohan Lal. In fact, they have been assigned the role of participation in executing the conspiracy so hatched. The last call was made by Bhanwari Devi to the present petitioner. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the trial is progressing in the manner as directed vide order dated 08.07.2014. Further, only 13 witnesses are left to be examined. This position has been achieved in spite of the fact that Indira Bishnoi, real sister of the petitioner is absconding from the investigation stage and has been declared a proclaimed offender, co-accused gangsters, namely, Bishnaram Bishnoi and Kailash Jakhar tried to escape from judicial custody in court campus by firing, out of which accused-Kailash Jakhar managed to escape but could be arrested only much later, whereas, 3 witnesses have made complaints for having received threats. The C.B.I. Inspector PW-185 Mr. P.M. Sevda was being examined for the last 3 consecutive days and his cross-examination by the counsel for the petitioner was still going on, as stated by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. 19. In view of the above, the fourth bail application is dismissed.