ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Yatin Oza, learned advocate with Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate for the complainant. 2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with the FIR registered at C.R.No.11217009210663 of 2021 with Harij Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 341, 195A, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1B)(a), 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 3. As per the FIR lodged by one Maheshkumar Karamshibhai Punjabhai, in the year 2016 there was a deadly attack on his friend i.e. Nagjibhai Bhikabhai Desai and pursuant to that a police complaint was lodged at Harij Police Station, wherein he was one of the witnesses in the said offence and the applicant viz. Sagar @Hardikbhai Babarbhai Desai used to threaten him as he was the witness in respect of the said FIR. However, he did not succumb to threat given by the applicant and thereafter the applicant along with his father left Harij and started residing at Gajdinpur, Taluka Sami. 3.1 As per the FIR, on 30.08.2017 applicant along with one Anil Desai and others carried out a deadly attack on the applicant and accordingly a complaint being FIR being CR No.I-39 of 2017 was lodged at Harij Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 307, etc. of the IPC against the applicant. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint along with the applicant Siddhrajsinh Talubha Vaghela and cousin of the applicant Anil Amratbhai Desai were arrested by the police. 3.2 As per the FIR, on 12.06.2021, brother of the complainant viz. Labhubhai told him that he has some work at Ganjbazar at Harij and therefore both of them went to Harij on their Activa bearing No.GJ-24-N-9880 and reached Ganjbazar, Harij and after finishing the work at 10:45 when they were passing through APMC office, the complainant found that in the corner applicant along with his cousin Anil Desai were standing and as he saw them he apprehended that something may happen and, therefore, they rushed towards the residence. At that time, one Siddhrajsinh Talubha Vaghela along with Paresh Vaghela, Chelshi Solanki and others came there, Siddhrajsinh Vaghela gave a lathi blow to his brother Labhubhai and thereafter the applicant along with four other persons came to the complainant and before they could think anything Anil Desai fired at the complainant on thighs, however, the complainant survived and thereafter the applicant pulled out a dagger and started giving blows repeatedly to the deceased Labhubhai. Rest of the people caught hold of the deceased Labhubhai and ultimately Labhubhai was shifted to a private hospital at Ahmedabad and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 3.3 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, applicant along with other accused were arrested and the applicant was arrested on 18.6.2021. Thereafter, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was filed on 20.9.2021. Present application is filed for enlarging the applicant on bail after the charge sheet is filed. 4. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned advocate with Mr. Jit Patel, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is a past animosity between families of the applicant and the deceased and since 2016 various complaints were filed against the family members of the applicant, including the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has submitted a chart showing the details about complaints filed against the family members of the applicant as well as the applicant. The said chart is reproduced as under: List of FIR & Bail Orders in CR.MA 18389 of 2021 Sagar @ Hardik Babarbhai Desai V/s State of Gujarat S. No. FIR/Police Station & Offence Particular of Bail orders 1. CR-I 33 of 2016 Harij Police Station U/s 395, 120(B) Etc. Complainant: Nagjibhai Bhikhabhai Desai (Bhikhabhai Kurshibhai Desai was serving as Head Constable at Harij Police Station) (Wife of Nagjibhai Bhikhabhai Desai and Wife of Khodabhai Savabhai Desai are cousin sisters) Accused persons: 1. Hardik Babarbhai Desai 2. Cheharbhai Amratbhai Desai (Cousin of Applicant) 3. Khodabhai Savabhai Desai (Real uncle of applicant) 4. Babarbhai Savabhai Desai (Father of applicant) Regular Bail granted by Ld. Sessions Court to Hardik Babarbhai Desai. CR.MA 505 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016 Khodabhai Savabhai Desai & Babar Savabhai Desai granted Anti-Bail by this Hon’ble Court. CR.MA 23959 of 2016 Dated 21.10.2016 (Para 6) (Hon’ble Justice Paresh Upadhyay J.) 2. CR-I 49 of 2016 Harij Police Station U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 Etc. of IPC. Sessions Court to Hardik Babarbhai Desai. CR.MA 505 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016 Khodabhai Savabhai Desai & Babar Savabhai Desai granted Anti-Bail by this Hon’ble Court. CR.MA 23959 of 2016 Dated 21.10.2016 (Para 6) (Hon’ble Justice Paresh Upadhyay J.) 2. CR-I 49 of 2016 Harij Police Station U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 Etc. of IPC. Complainant: Motibhai Kurshibhai Desai (Elder brother of Bhikhabhai Kurshibhai Desai) Accused persons: 1. Khodabhai Savabhai Desai 2. Hardik Babarbhai Desai 3. Baldev Mafabhai Desai Regular Bail Granted by Ld. Sessions Court to applicant Hardik Babarbhai Desai CR.MA 525 of 2016. Dated 12.08.2016 Cancellation of Bail Application rejected by this Hon’ble Court CR.MA 9218 of 2017 Dated: 28.11.2017 (Para 6) (Hon’ble Justice S.H. Vora J.) 3. CR-I No. 36 of 2017 Chanasma Police Station U/s 307 of IPC. Complainant: Motibhai Khurshibhai Desai (Elder brother of Bhikhabhai Kurshibhai Desai) Accused Persons: 1. Babar Savabhai Desai (Father of applicant) 2. Hardik Babarbhai Desai 3. Khodabhai Savabhai Desai (Real Uncle of applicant) Anticipatory Bail Granted by Ld. Sessions court to Hardik Babarbhai Desai along with co-accused father and uncle of Hardik Babarbhai Desai. CR.MA 377 of 2017 Dated 04.07.2017 Cancellation of Bail rejected by this Hon’ble Court CR.MA 18345 of 2017 Dated 28.11.2017 (Hon’ble Justice S.H. Vora J.) 4. CR-I 39 of 2017 Harij Police Station U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 Etc. of IPC Complainant: Mahesh Kamshibhai Desai (Cousin brother of Bhikhabhai Kurshibhai Desai) Accused Persons: 1. Hardik Babarbhai Desai 2. Anil Amratbhai Desai (Cousin of Applicant) 3. Siddhrajsinh Talubha Vaghela (Have adjacent farms to the applicant) 4. Gumansang Talubha Vaghela 5. Laxmansinh Vihaji Vaghela 6.Mahendrasinh Vajubha Vaghela 7. Jitubha Ratansinh Vaghela 8. Takhubha Thakuji Vaghela Regular Bail granted by Ld. Sessions Court CR.MA 1209 of 2017 Dated 07.11.2017 (Para 6) 5. CR-II No. 110 of 2017 U/s 506(2) of IPC Complainant: Motibhai Khurshibhai Desai (Elder brother of Bhikhabhai Kurshibhai Desai) Accused: Hardik Babarbhai Desai Acquitted by Ld. Trial Court (Ld. JMFC Harij) Criminal Case no. 12 of 2018 Judgment dated 17.08.2021. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Oza, tendered some of the orders granting anticipatory bail and regular bail passed in favour of the applicant as well as the family members of the applicant. In fact, in respect of some of the FIRs after the bail was granted in favour of the applicant, an application for cancellation of bail was filed and even that application was rejected. Oza, tendered some of the orders granting anticipatory bail and regular bail passed in favour of the applicant as well as the family members of the applicant. In fact, in respect of some of the FIRs after the bail was granted in favour of the applicant, an application for cancellation of bail was filed and even that application was rejected. According to learned advocate Mr. Oza, since 2016 the family of the complainant due to some dispute between the family members is trying to frame the applicant and his family, and therefore, at every point of time false and frivolous complaints are being filed against the applicant and his family members. Mr. Oza has relied upon the observations made by this Court in following orders passed by this Court while granting bail to the applicant and family members of the applicant wherein it is specifically stated that there exist some disputes between two families and out of animosity only though the actual offence has never taken place, the applicant and all his family members have been framed. [a] Criminal Misc. Application No.23959 of 2016 [order dated 21.10.2016 (Para 6)] - Khodabhai Savabhai Desai & Babar Savabhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat [this Court granted Anticipatory bail]. Para 6 of the order dated 21.10.2016 is reproduced, as under: “6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and which is made available to the Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that, this is the fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The factors which have weighed with this Court are to the effect that, the narration itself show lack of bona fide on the part of the complainant. It is his say that on some social function, the gold ornaments of his wife are given to her sister, which are not returned and that led to the scuffle. It is noted that, the complainant is the son of a police officer, who is working in that very district, the accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and considering the local social conditions, the offence prima facie does not appear to have taken place as it is sought to be projected. It is noted that, the complainant is the son of a police officer, who is working in that very district, the accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and considering the local social conditions, the offence prima facie does not appear to have taken place as it is sought to be projected. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also, on the basis of the say of the Investigating Officer who is present before the Court, has confirmed this aspect. The assessment of the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that, on some religious function of Goddess Sikotar Mata, some donation was given to the temple and who would offer pooja and/ or the donation would be claimed to have been given by whom, was the dispute and that has led to the occurrence, which is sought to be given a colour of the offence in question. This Court has taken into consideration the material and also the assessment of the Investigating Officer, which is prima facie found to be correct. No custodial interrogation of the applicants would be required. It is also noted that, there are total five accused, three accused are already arrested and the present two applicants are working in semi-government organisation as clerks and therefore, with a view to see that their service is put at stake, serious opposition has come on behalf of the original complainant. This is the additional factor which would weigh against the complainant and in favour of the applicants.” [b] Criminal Misc. Application No. 9218 of 2017 [order dated 28.11.2017 (Para 6)] – Motibhai Khursinhbhai Desai vs. State of Gujarat [this Court rejected application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Khodabhai Savabhai Desai, Hardik Babarbhai Desai & Baldev Mafabhai Desai]. Para 6 of the order dated 28.11.2017 is reproduced, as under: “6. Having heard the submissions made at bar and considering the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.23959 of 2016 passed by this Court on 21.10.2016, this Court, in para 6, made following observations:- “6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and which is made available to the Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that, this is the fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and which is made available to the Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that, this is the fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The factors which have weighed with this Court are to the effect that, the narration itself show lack of bona fide on the part of the complainant. It is his say that on some social function, the gold ornaments of his wife are given to her sister, which are not returned and that led to the scuffle. It is noted that, the complainant is the son of a police officer, who is working in that very district, the accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and considering the local social conditions, the offence prima facie does not appear to have taken place as it is sought to be projected. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also, on the basis of the say of the Investigating Officer who is present before the Court, has confirmed this aspect. The assessment of the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that, on some religious function of Goddess Sikotar Mata, some donation was given to the temple and who would offer pooja and/ or the donation would be claimed to have been given by whom, was the dispute and that has led to the occurrence, which is sought to be given a colour of the offence in question. This Court has taken into consideration the material and also the assessment of the Investigating Officer, which is prima facie found to be correct. No custodial interrogation of the applicants would be required. It is also noted that, there are total five accused, three accused are already arrested and the present two applicants are working in semi-government organisation as clerks and therefore, with a view to see that their service is put at stake, serious opposition has come on behalf of the original complainant. No custodial interrogation of the applicants would be required. It is also noted that, there are total five accused, three accused are already arrested and the present two applicants are working in semi-government organisation as clerks and therefore, with a view to see that their service is put at stake, serious opposition has come on behalf of the original complainant. This is the additional factor which would weigh against the complainant and in favour of the applicants.” Having regard to the observations made by this Court, as aforesaid, the complainant being the son of police officer, the occurrence of offence, as sought to be projected, was not believed by this Court and therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with grant of regular bail with respect to the present offence on account of earlier offence or subsequent offence as base to cancel the regular bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge in view of observations made by this Court in the order dated 21.10.2016, as aforesaid.” 4.2 Mr. Oza has relying upon the orders granting bail to the applicant by the Sessions Court has stated that all throughout because of animosity between the two families the applicant has been framed and for no reason, the offences are registered against the applicant. In this background, learned advocate Mr. Oza has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that as per the original FIR, the complainant has stated that it was the applicant who has given dagger blows to the deceased Labhubhai, which has resulted into the death of Labhubhai, whereas, as per the charge sheet filed after investigation, it is categorically stated that the applicant was not present at the scene of offence and actually he was at Deodhar, at a distance of 35 kms from the scene of offence. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has drawn attention of this Court to the charge sheet wherein it is categorically stated that as per the CCTV footage on 10.6.2021, the applicant was at Patan, on 11th he was at Harij and on 12th he was shown to be at Deodhar. Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has drawn attention of this Court to the charge sheet wherein it is categorically stated that as per the CCTV footage on 10.6.2021, the applicant was at Patan, on 11th he was at Harij and on 12th he was shown to be at Deodhar. Mr. Oza further drawn the attention to the charge sheet papers wherein it is stated that as per the charge sheet the dagger blows were given by accused No.7 - Chelshi Solanki and contrary to the FIR, the role attributed to the applicant was in respect of hatching a conspiracy to kill Labhubhai. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has further pointed out that, the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the CDR details and as the CDR details reveals that the applicant through mobile phone was in touch with other accused and he was the kingpin, who has hatched the conspiracy. However, except CDR details, there is no other evidence which could indicate the involvement of the applicant in the crime. According to Mr. Oza, the prosecution cannot solely rely upon the CDR details to implicate the applicant and come to the conclusion that he was kingpin in hatching the conspiracy to kill Labhubhai. As CDR details as well as the allegation about hatching conspiracy against the complainant by the applicant are matter of evidence, which can be proved only by leading evidence in the trial. Therefore, there may not be conviction of the applicant before the trial or without leading any evidence by keeping the applicant behind the bars. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Oza submitted that one of the relatives of the complainant was holding a very high post in the Police Department, and therefore, by using his influence somehow the applicant has been implicated. However, the above submission was negated by learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave by saying that the relative to whom Mr. Oza is referring to was transferred almost a year back to another district, and therefore, there is no basis to substantiate or to believe the above submission of Mr. Oza. Learned advocate Mr. Oza submitted that considering the fact that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and also considering the fact that CDR details can be said to be a very weak piece of evidence, by imposing stringent conditions the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Mr. Oza. Learned advocate Mr. Oza submitted that considering the fact that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and also considering the fact that CDR details can be said to be a very weak piece of evidence, by imposing stringent conditions the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Mr. Oza further submitted that the applicant may be directed to stay out of Mehsana, Patan and Banaskantha districts till the trial is over except for attending the hearing of the court cases which are going on in different courts in the aforesaid districts. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Oza also submitted that the condition may be imposed upon the applicant to provide his address of the place where he intend to reside and prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP submitted has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that it is true that as per the charge sheet papers, the presence of the applicant is not found at the scene of offence. However, as per the CDR details, it can be established that the applicant, who had past animosity with the family of the deceased, was the kingpin and instrumental in hatching the conspiracy against the deceased. This was a pre-planned cold blooded murder for which the applicant was constantly in touch with other co-accused. Merely because the applicant was not present at the scene of offence, it cannot be said that he has not actively involved in the offence. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned APP therefore submitted that the CDR details categorically shows that the applicant was in constant touch with other co-accused, which can be said to be sufficient piece of evidence, and therefore, at this juncture the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the application by stating that in fact out of vengeance only since a few complaints were registered against the applicant and his family members to take revenge only, the conspiracy was hatched by the applicant and accordingly the deceased Labhubhai was killed. He further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, it will cause a threat to family of the complainant and that also will adversely affect the law and order situation and peaceful atmosphere in the area. Mr. He further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, it will cause a threat to family of the complainant and that also will adversely affect the law and order situation and peaceful atmosphere in the area. Mr. Dave further submitted that the motive of the applicant was to kill the complainant, who was a witness in a case against the applicant, however, on the day of offence, the applicant survived and the deceased Labhubhai was killed. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present application. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments: [1] State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 516 . [2] Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttarpradesh & Anr. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 422 . [3] Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 . [4] Harjit Singh vs. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SCC 633. 6.1 On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave submitted that considering the past antecedents of the applicant, no bail be granted in favour of the applicant. 7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Oza submitted that to consider the antecedents, the accused must be convicted and merely filing FIRs out of animosity by a particular family cannot be treated as antecedents. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, what transpires from the record is that though in the FIR the role attributed to the applicant was to the extent that he has given dagger blows to the deceased – Labhubhai. In the FIR the complainant has categorically stated that he found the applicant along with one Anil Desai at the scene of offence and upon seeing them he and Labhubhai tried to rush towards the residence. Whereas, as per the charge sheet papers, the presence of the applicant is found at Deodhar and not at the scene of offence. Even, the learned APP could not dispute the aforesaid fact. Whereas, as per the charge sheet papers, the presence of the applicant is found at Deodhar and not at the scene of offence. Even, the learned APP could not dispute the aforesaid fact. However, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the fact that there was a previous animosity between the two families and because of the animosity between the families, conspiracy was hatched by the applicant, and therefore, the applicant was considered to be kingpin and was arrested and at present now the bail is opposed on the ground that it was he who had the motive to kill the complainant. However, he failed in achieving that motive and instead Labhubhai was killed. 8.1 Learned APP Mr. Dave has heavily relied upon CDR details and submitted that considering the number of phone calls exchanged between the applicant and other co-accused it clearly establishes that the conspiracy was hatched by the applicant. However, when a query was made as to whether the applicant was knowing the other co-accused since long or just were recently came into contact with them, it was fairly submitted by Mr. Dave that call record indicates that they were in touch with each other from the month of January and call records provided in the charge sheet was also from the month of January. At this juncture, a query was posed to Mr. Oza about the status of Siddhrajsinh Vaghela, and it was submitted by Mr. Oza that Siddhrajsinh Vaghela happens to be the friend of the applicant and he is the owner of adjoining farm of the applicant. Mr. Oza submitted that FIR was registered against both of them since 2016 and 2017, and therefore, it is natural for them to be in touch with each other on phone. Considering the fact that they were neighbours and friends, frequent phone calls between them cannot be termed as hatching conspiracy. 8.2 Considering the aforesaid reply pursuant to the query raised by the Court and also considering the fact that there is no other material on record which may indicate the involvement of the applicant in respect of the offence, as in spite of repeated queries, learned APP could not point out any other material from charge sheet papers, which may indicate the involvement of the applicant in the offence. Merely because two persons have remained in touch with each other through phone calls, more particularly, when investigation is over and in absence of any other material to show involvement of applicant cannot be considered to be a material to deny bail to a person. From the charge sheet papers, learned APP could not point out that there was any witness who has either heard or seen the applicant hatching the conspiracy. It is only on the basis of CCTV footage that it was presumed by prosecution that the applicant along with all other the accused, who were found together in CCTV footage prior to the date of incident that the applicant is involved in hatching the conspiracy. However, the CCTV footage were sent to FSL and no conclusive report is given by the FSL. 8.3 Further as from the past it can be seen from the orders produced by Mr. Oza whereby the applicant or his family members were granted bail or anticipatory bail, it transpires that time and again the courts while granting bail or anticipatory bail or while rejecting application for cancellation of bail categorically observed that it is because of the family dispute between two families that the present applicant was attempted to be implicated falsely, and therefore, the aforesaid possibility cannot be ruled out in respect of the present offence as per the version of the complainant it was the applicant, who has given dagger blows, but as per the charge sheet papers, the presence of the applicant was at Deodhar, which according to Mr. Oza. around 35 kms. from the scene of offence. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, and considering the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40 , without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR registered at C.R.No.11217009210663 of 2021 with Harij Police Station on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant 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] not to leave the Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [d] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [e] shall not enter Patan, Banaskantha and Mehsana districts, except for attending the court cases till the trial is over and the moment it is found that the applicant has stayed in the aforesaid three districts for more than 24 hours, except for attending the court proceedings, the bail granted by this Court by way of this order shall automatically stand cancelled. [f] shall provide the residential address where the applicant chooses to reside within a period of one month from the date of his release and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [g] mark his presence before the nearest police station, as per the new address that the applicant may provide, once in a fortnight till the trial is over; [h] appear before the Investigating Officer concerned, as and when required for investigation purpose and attend the Court concerned regularly. 9.1 The Authorities will release the applicant only if the applicant 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. 9.2 Bail bond to be executed before the learned 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. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative and prima facie observations only for the purpose of granting bail and the trial court may not be influenced by the aforesaid observations at the time of trial. 12. At this stage, Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate for the complainant requests for stay of the order as the present applicant is in jail since 18.06.2021. However, considering the reasons given hereinabove, the request made by Mr. Siddharth Dave is rejected.