ORDER : 1. This Successive Regular Bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I11189001200475 of 2020 with HALVAD POLICE STATION, DISTRICTMORBI, for the offence punishable under Sections of the 302, 436, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was actually apprehended on 15-08-2020. However, in the charge-sheet papers, the applicant is shown to be arrested on 28-08-2020 and the applicant was prouduced before the Magistrate on 29-082-020. Therefore, the Investigating Agency have resorted to illegally detaining the applicant. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the during the course of investigation, Dying Declaration of the deceased was recorded and in fact, the deceased had also made an earlier Dying Declaration in front of several witnesses, when he was taken for the treatment due to burn injuries. At that time, the applicant has named only co-accused– Mahadev Kanabhai, Suresh Kanabhai and Dinesh Kanabhai. However, the applicant is not even named in the FIR and therefore, there is no circumstance or evidence to implicate the applicant in the offence. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant thereafter submitted that witnesses have made videography of the Dying Declaration, wherein also the applicant is not named. It is submitted that now the investigation is concluded. The applicant is young man aged 24 years and has no other antecedents. In fact, there is no motive attributed to the applicant unlike the motive attributed to the accused persons, who are named in the FIR. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the applicant-accused also had motive as the deceased had raised suspicion on the applicant to have stolen his mobile as well as money and thereby causing stigma on the applicant. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the applicant-accused also had motive as the deceased had raised suspicion on the applicant to have stolen his mobile as well as money and thereby causing stigma on the applicant. 7. Learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses particularly witness Ashok Pipaliya to indicate that the applicant had confessed to his participation in the offence and that his footware (chappal) had remained at the scene of the offence and therefore, had asked this witness to go and collect it. 8. Learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the Medicolegal Certificate of the applicant which indicates that the hands of the applicant had marks of burn injuries, which the applicant had suffered during the commission of offence. There is no explanation coming forth. Learned APP also submitted that there is statement of witnesses, which indicates that the applicant had taken a haircut as in the incident, as hairs of the applicant was also burned and as burnt hairs may not be visible, he had got the same cut from a witness. Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court to yet another witness, who has stated that the applicant had purchased petrol, just prior to the incident and CCTV footages to this fact is also taken during the course of investigation. 9. Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court to yet another witness, who has stated that the applicant had purchased petrol, just prior to the incident and CCTV footages to this fact is also taken during the course of investigation. 9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that as the complainant’s son Vikram, age 24 Years, had love affair with Shilpa, daughter of accused Mahadev, which was causing issue in her engagement and deceased was doubting the applicant no.1 for the theft of his mobile and money and the deceased would use some witchcraft on the applicant, therefore, bearing grudge, all the accused persons preplanned criminal conspiracy, assuming that no one suspect the accused as he was sleeping at Hanuman temple, the accused no.2 to 4 told accused no.1 to kill the deceased and when Vikram, deceased son of the complainant was sleeping in the room at Hanumanji Temple, the accused no.1 closed the door of the said room from outside and with intention to cause his death, the accused poured petrol (liquid) from the window of the said room and set him ablaze and the deceased burnt severely and succumbed during the treatment, thus the accused, by abetting each other to accomplish their common intention, committed an offense. 10. It appears that involvement of the applicant came to be asserted on the basis of Medicolegal Certificate dated 17-08-2020, where the involvement of the applicant was detected, when the applicant who was residing in the same village, whose hands were found with burn injuries, which the applicant was unable to explain. The statement of the witness-Ashok Pipaliya indicates that the applicant had contacted the said witness by sending messages on the mobile phone to indicate that the applicant had left his footware at the scene of the offence and therefore, asked him to collect the same from the scene of the offence as he was not able to go to the place where the incident has taken place. 11. Another statement of the witness indicates that the applicant had purchased the petrol in proximate period to commission of offence. 11. Another statement of the witness indicates that the applicant had purchased the petrol in proximate period to commission of offence. Yet another statement of the witness – Nirav Panara dated 17-08-2020 indicates that the applicant had visited him for having haircut and the witness had found the applicant's hair were burnt on right side of his forehead, which the witness had cut. 12. Considering the Dying Declaration and the manner in which the incident took place, where the deceased could see three persons, who had poured the petrol from the window, as the vision of the deceased restricted only to the extend of open window, but would not see what is beyond the open window and therefore, participation of the applicant merely on the basis of the Dying Declaration not recording the name of the applicant can't be ruled out. Moreover, during the course of investigation, necessary equipments were found, which would indicate the role of the applicant to have unscrued the aluminim window by use of testor (screw driver), which was discovered at behest of the applicant. Aluminium window, which was removed, was also received at behest of the applicant. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court finds there sufficient evidence prima facie against the applicant in serious offence of burning the victim to death on account of motive as mentioned herein above. The Court has perused the order of the Sessions Court which has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting application of the applicant. Hence, no case is made out for the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant for the grant of regular bail in connection with aforesaid C.R. Hence, the application deserves to and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.