JUDGMENT 1. Apprehended pursuant to investigation into FIR (CR), No. 90/2017, registered at Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur, for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120/149 IPC, accused-petitioner has laid this third bail application. At present, petitioner is facing trial for the said offences in Sessions Case No. 48/17 pending before Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur. 2. First bail application on behalf of petitioner was dismissed on 8th of August, 2017 by a detailed order. Subsequently, petitioner filed yet another bail application bearing No. 5162/2018. The said bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 19th of July, 2019 with liberty to renew prayer afresh after recording statements of prosecution witness Khuman Singh. 3. Arguing on this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Nishant Bora, that after rejection of second bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. Elaborating his submission in this behalf, learned counsel has referred to the statements of P.W.10 Khuman Singh pointing out serious discrepancies therein. It is argued by learned counsel Mr. Bora that statements of P.W.10 Khuman Singh are not inspiring confidence inasmuch as the allegations of conspiracy by the witness against petitioner are omnibus. Learned counsel further contends that the witness has made an affirmative attempt to project an embellished version so as to implicate the petitioner in alleged conspiracy. Relying on the version of witness during cross-examination, learned counsel would contend that in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W.10 has not divulged any information about petitioners threat to liquidate deceased Ms. Usha through hired assassins and it is only during his deposition before the Court that he has come out with an improved version. 4. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this sort of improved version of the witness has rendered his testimony doubtful, more particularly, when his police statements were recorded almost a month posterior to the date of incident. It is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioner was arrested on 1st of May 2017 and since then more than two years have passed and during trial so far only ten witnesses out of thirty-seven cited by the prosecution are examined. It is also submitted by learned counsel that co-accused Smt. Anita Joshi, Smt. Parvati Joshi, Smt. Kamla Joshi and Udailal have been enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this third bail application. It is also submitted by learned counsel that co-accused Smt. Anita Joshi, Smt. Parvati Joshi, Smt. Kamla Joshi and Udailal have been enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this third bail application. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that accused-petitioner has played an active role in conspiracy to murder deceased Ms. Usha, and therefore, in the backdrop of attribution of serious criminal delinquency, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor has urged that so far during trial, ten prosecution witnesses have been examined and prosecution has dropped seven witnesses, therefore, completion of trial is not likely to take longer duration. It is also submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Shah, that on a cumulative reading of statements of P.W.10 Khuman Singh, involvement of petitioner in criminal delinquency is clearly discernible. He, therefore, submits that his bail plea is liable to be thwarted. 7. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused materials available on record including statements of P.W.10 Khuman Singh. 8. While it is true that presence of accused-petitioner at the scene of occurrence has not been unearthed by the prosecution but for showing involvement of the petitioner in criminal conspiracy his previous animosity with the deceased is sought to be projected. In overall scenario, as per charge-sheet, proximity of the petitioner with the alleged offence is shown on the basis of call details, showing communication between some of the accused persons and the petitioner. In this connection, if statements of prosecution witness P.W.7 Mohit are examined, then it would ipso facto reveal that he has retracted from his earlier version by turning hostile. Likewise, P.W.3 Dinesh has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 9. In totality, testimony of P.W.10 Khuman Singh, may be with an improved version, is projecting the petitioner as conspirator but for questionable lack of requisite sting. Be that as it may, it would be inappropriate to make comments about the credibility of his statements at this stage. However, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded that there are material change in the circumstances after rejection of second bail application. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, this third bail application deserves acceptance. 10. However, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded that there are material change in the circumstances after rejection of second bail application. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, this third bail application deserves acceptance. 10. Accordingly, this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Bhagwati Lal S/o Late Shri Devi Lal Khatik, arrested in connection with F.I.R. (C.R.) No. 90/2017 of Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.