JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition, preferred under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.54 of 2016, dated 04.07.2016, registered under Sections 302 & 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), in Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmour (H.P.). 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3rd July, 2016, deceased Sohan Singh (husband of co-accused Sushma Rani), had not returned from his shop and his dead body was noticed by complainant Gafur Mohammad, lying alongwith motorcycle below the culvert, on 4th July, 2016 at 08.00 a.m., near Gulria bridge, when he had looked below the culvert after noticing the blood, pieces of glass, battery and mobile phone on the road. Whereafter, he informed one Satish Kumar, who, in turn, informed the villagers and on arrival of the police on the spot, his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after registration of F.I.R., investigation was carried out. During post-morterm, it revealed that deceased died as a result of shock due to ante mortem injury to brain tissue with a moderately heavy weapn leading to blunt trauma homicidal in nature. On verifying the details of mobile phones of relatives and friends of deceased, it revealed that during the night of incident at 12.31 a.m., co-accused Sushma Rani had conversation from her mobile phone bearing No.8894449439, with a person having mobile number of Haryana area, bearing No.8930892125. 3. On verification about Mobile No.8930892125, its sim was found in the name of Nitesh Kumar s/o Sh. Brahm Singh, resident of Jagadhari. On enquiry, the said Nitesh Kumar had disclosed that he had given this sim to his elder brother Rajesh Kumar and during those days, his brother had been using the said sim. 4. 3. On verification about Mobile No.8930892125, its sim was found in the name of Nitesh Kumar s/o Sh. Brahm Singh, resident of Jagadhari. On enquiry, the said Nitesh Kumar had disclosed that he had given this sim to his elder brother Rajesh Kumar and during those days, his brother had been using the said sim. 4. On further enquiry of CDR and IMEI of mobile phones, it was found that mobile phone used for Sim No.8930892125, was also being used for another Sim No.9812582353, location of which was found on the spot of incident during the night of commission of offence and it was also revealed that Sim No.9812582353 was in the name of father of co-accused Sushma Rani, who had given it to his son Rinku and Rinku had given it to his sister, co-accused Sushma Rani, who lastly had given it to petitioner Rajesh Kumar son of her step maternal aunt and at the time of incident, petitioner was found using the said sim. 5. On tracing, on 20th July, 2016, petitioner Rajesh Kumar was found in a Village in District Yamunanagar (Haryana) and on enquiry he had disclosed that he and co-accused Sushma were having affairs, but due to marriage of co-accused Sushma in April, 2016 with deceased Sohan Singh, they were finding it difficult to meet each other. Therefore, they had conspired to eliminate deceased Sohan Singh and as per plan, on 3rd July, 2016, petitioner Rajesh had come to Barma Papri, the place of deceased Sohan Singh and had concealed a piece of iron pipe behind the parapet and started waiting for Sohan Singh near his shop on the road, wherefrom deceased Sohan Singh had to cross to go home after closing his shop. On arrival of Sohan Singh at that place, petitioner Rajesh met him and they started moving on their motor cycle, having talks with each other. On reaching Gulria bridge culvert, petitioner Rajesh Kumar asked deceased Sohan Singh to stop on the pretext of urinating. At that time Sohan Singh was carrying a bundle of rubber pipe around his neck. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar took out the iron pipe and hit the head of Sohan Singh with it with force, whereupon Sohan Singh fell down on the road. Whereafter, petitioner Rajesh Kumar had thrown the pipe into the Nallah and dragged Sohan Singh and threw his motor cycle below the culvert. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar took out the iron pipe and hit the head of Sohan Singh with it with force, whereupon Sohan Singh fell down on the road. Whereafter, petitioner Rajesh Kumar had thrown the pipe into the Nallah and dragged Sohan Singh and threw his motor cycle below the culvert. Thereafter, petitioner Rajesh Kumar came down below the culvert and found that Sohan Singh had expired within two three minutes and then he went back to Yamunagar on his motor cycle. As per prosecution case, during investigation, co-accused Sushma Rani had corroborated the version of petitioner Rajesh Kumar. 6. It is also mentioned in the status report that on verification of antecedents of petitioner Rajesh Kumar, it has been found that there were five cases registered against him and in case No.297/06 under Sections 279, 337 of IPC, case No.331/06 under Sections 457, 511 of IPC and case No.31/07 under Section 364A, 376, 302, 201 of IPC, he had been acquitted and in case No.293/06 under Sections 457, 380 of IPC, trial is pending, whereas in case No.18/07 under Sections 376, 302, 201 of IPC, registered in Police Station, Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour (H.P.), he has been convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment and was serving sentence in Modal Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur at the time of incident. On enquiry from the Superintendent of Jail, it was revealed that he was released on parole sanctioned from 12th November, 2015 to 21st November, 2015 but had not returned to Jail on expiry of the said period and was absentee on parole. During this period, petitioner had conspired and committed the offence. 7. It has also been stated in the status report that statement of twenty witnesses have been recorded and co-accused Sushma Rani, who has already been enlarged on bail, was not present in the trial Court on 17.08.2020 and therefore, the case has now been fixed for her service on 14.09.2020. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused Sushma Rani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2019, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1338 of 2018 and that further in the FIR the petitioner has not been named as an accused. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused Sushma Rani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2019, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1338 of 2018 and that further in the FIR the petitioner has not been named as an accused. He further submits that not only this but also the petitioner for spread of COVID-19 Pandemic, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail as in these days for completion of trial, it may take a long time. Lastly, it is submitted that in case the Court does not find it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail, proceedings in the trial Court may be directed to be expedited in the trial Court. 9. It is true that co-accused Shushma Rani has been enlarged on bail by this Court, but she has been granted bail for different reasons which are not applicable in case of the petitioner. She was enlarged on bail keeping in view her age, coupled with the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C., particularly her womanhood. It is evident from the record that she was not involved in any other case prior to present one. Contrary to her case, the petitioner is not a woman and further he has been found involved in number of criminal cases. Though he has been acquitted in four cases and in one case trial is still pending, however, it is also a fact that he has been convicted in FIR No.18 of 2007, under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC, registered in Police Station Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour (H.P.) and he has been sentenced for life imprisonment. 10. It is also undisputed fact that w.e.f. 12.11.2015 to 21.11.2015, the petitioner was released on parole, however, after expiry of parole period, he had not returned to Jail, rather absented him. During this absentee period, he had committed the offence in present case. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not similar to co-accused Sushma Rani, rather he stands on entirely different footing and thus, his claim for bail on parity with co-accused Sushma Rani, is not tenable and hence rejected. 11. Though, it is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that his name does not find mention in FIR, however, prosecution claims, on the basis of circumstantial evidence especially CDR and location of mobile phones being used by petitioner, that offence has been committed by the petitioner. 11. Though, it is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that his name does not find mention in FIR, however, prosecution claims, on the basis of circumstantial evidence especially CDR and location of mobile phones being used by petitioner, that offence has been committed by the petitioner. Leaving aside the respective claims of the parties, for nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances placed on record, without commenting upon merits of the evidence being relied upon by the prosecution, I find that it is not a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail on this ground. 12. Prayer for release on the ground of COVID-19 Pandemic, is also not tenable for the reasons that there is no report of spread of COVID-19 Pandemic in the Jails of Himachal Pradesh, especially in Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour (H.P.). A judicial note can be taken of a communication received from the Director General of Prisons, State of Hmachal Pradesh, referred to in Cr.MMO No.191 of 2020, titled Deepak Verma versus Director General of Prisons, decided on 30.06.2020, whereby it has been informed that all the Jails in Himachal Pradesh are safe and no case of COVID-19 Pandemic has been reported so far and the Department is taking full precautions for protection of prisoners and staff of the prisons. Petitioner is a life convict and in any case, even after his enlargement on bail in present case, he has to stay in Jail, therefore, on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 13. Considering all the facts in entirety, in view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed, with a direction to learned trial Court to expedite the hearing in the present case by recording the remaining evidence at the earliest in the light of notification/circular dated 07.08.2020, issued by the High Court by adopting all safety measures and following necessary norms including social distancing. Parties are also directed to extend effective cooperation to the trial Court, enabling it to record the evidence for completion of trial at the earliest and also to avoid unnecessary adjournments.