ORDER : V.M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The present application, which is a successive bail application, is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-112/2018 registered with Dungara Police Station, Valsad for offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 427 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset, learned advocate, Mr. Panchal appearing for the applicant submitted this is a successive bail application filed by the applicant after the earlier application filed by the applicant was withdrawn on 04.07.2019, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No. 46 of the compilation. It is submitted that this Court has granted liberty to the applicant to file fresh application if the trial does not progress substantially within a period of six months and, hence, the applicant has filed this application at this stage on the ground of change of circumstances. 3. It is contended that as the case of the prosecution, the applicant has tried to give hammer blow on the head of the complainant, however, the complainant received injury on his right elbow, whereas some of the co-accused have given blow on the hand and leg of the complainant and one of the co-accused gave kick and fist blow to the complainant. It is submitted that all these co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2019 and 01.10.2019. 4. It is further contended that though six other FIRs were registered against the applicant, the applicant has been acquitted by the competent criminal court in five cases and in one FIR, which is filed in the year 2011, till date, chargesheet is not filed. 5. It is also contended that looking to the role attributed to the applicant and other co-accused, it cannot be said that the accused have committed alleged offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out from the record that there was no intention to kill the complainant and the complainant has not received any injury on the vital part of the body. It is, therefore, urged that this application be considered. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.V. Raju appearing for the original complainant has opposed this application. It is pointed out from the record that there was no intention to kill the complainant and the complainant has not received any injury on the vital part of the body. It is, therefore, urged that this application be considered. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.V. Raju appearing for the original complainant has opposed this application. It is submitted that though the applicant is acquitted by the concerned criminal court in five cases, if the orders of acquittal are examined, it is revealed that the concerned witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and, therefore in the present case, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there are chances that the applicant may tamper with witnesses. It is further contended that the applicant has submitted an application before the concerned trial court in March, 2019 and requested that the report of FSL has not been given to him and, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the prosecution to supply copy of FSL report and relevant documents so that he can properly defend his case. It is submitted that after the receipt of the said application, the trial court has not proceeded with the trial. 7. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Ors. delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2012, more particularly, referred to Paragraph Nos. 29, 30 and 32 of the said decision. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508 and referred to the observations made in Para Nos. 9 and 17. Learned Senior Counsel, thereafter, has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178 and referred to the observations made in Para No. 26 of the said decision. Lastly, he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 and has referred to Para Nos. 29 and 30 of the said decision. Lastly, he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 and has referred to Para Nos. 29 and 30 of the said decision. After referring to the aforesaid decisions, it is contended that looking to the past antecedents of the applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in his favour and even his jail conduct is also not good and, therefore, the application be dismissed. 8. Learned APP Mr. Soni referred to the statements of relevant witnesses including the statement given by one Anandkumar Patel and pointed out that the applicant was having enmity with the said Anandkumar and, therefore, as the complainant is friend of witness, Anandkumar, he was assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. This Court has considered following aspects, (a) though this is a successive bail application after the withdrawal of earlier application filed by the applicant on 04.07.2019, it is required to be observed that on 05.07.2019, the co-accused, Kalpesh Kalidas Valvi and Mitesh Manishbhai Shah have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide separate orders; (b) another co-accused, Prakash @ Pakyo Ishvarbhai Mahale has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.10.2019; (c) it is the case of the applicant that against all the aforesaid three co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court after the application was withdrawn by the applicant, almost similar allegations are leveled; (d) the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2018; (e) the investigation is concluded and the chargesheet is filed; (f) the application filed by the co-accused, Prakash Mahale before this Court was also successive bail application. It is required to be noted that the case of the said co-accused was not considered by the coordinate bench of this Court and, therefore, the application was withdrawn by him on 26.02.2019 with a liberty to file fresh application if the trial does not progress substantially within a period of six months. Thus the coordinate bench of this Court has considered the successive bail application of the co-accused, against whom almost similar type of applications have been levelled. (g) the injured is discharged from the hospital long back; (h) the applicant has been acquitted by the competent criminal court in five cases and the said orders of acquittal are not challenged before the higher forum by filing acquittal Appeal. Thus, it cannot be said that there are six antecedents against the applicant. Further as contended by learned advocate for the applicant that one FIR is pending against him, which is filed in the year 2011, wherein till date, the chargesheet is not filed; (i) this Court cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions, upon which reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju appearing for the original complainant. However if the said decisions are carefully seen then, it is revealed that in case of Ash Mohammad (supra), 30 FIRs were registered against the concerned accused and all cases were pending before the concerned Court as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No. 29 of the said decision and, hence looking to the facts of the said case and looking to the criminal antecedents of the said accused, the Hon'ble Supreme court has made certain observations. Similarly in case of Neeru Yadav (supra) in Para No. 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the fact that the concerned accused was chargesheeted in respect of number of other heinous offence and, therefore, when the bail was granted by the concerned High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the concerned High Court and directed the concerned accused to surrender to the custody. This Court has also considered two other decisions, upon which, reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju appearing for the original complainant. This Court has also considered two other decisions, upon which, reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju appearing for the original complainant. However by imposing suitable condition, the case of the applicant can be considered; (j) all other co-accused have been enlarged on bail either by the concerned Sessions Court or by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the present applicant. 11. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 12. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I-112/2018 registered with Dungara Police Station, Valsad on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [g] shall not enter into Valsad district as also nearby Union territory for a period of six months except for marking presence as also for attending court proceedings. 13. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 14. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.