JUDGMENT N.J. Jamadar, J. - This appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act, 1989), is directed against an order dated 22nd April, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Vasai whereby the application preferred by the appellant/accused to enlarge him on bail, primarily on medical grounds, came to be rejected. 2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated in brief as under: The indictment against the appellant/accused is that, the appellant and Baban Mahadu Mali (the deceased), were dealing in construction business in partnership. A building was being constructed over Survey No. 12, at Mouje Shilottar. After the demise of father of the deceased in the year 2014, it transpired that the said land was actually the ancestral property of the father of the deceased. In the wake of the dispute, the deceased instituted a suit bearing Suit No. 106 of 2016. Thus, the relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 2nd February, 2018 at about 9.00 am while the appellant was passing from in front of the house of the deceased an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased. The first informant Ravindra and his brother Jagdish went to the said spot and attempted to pacify the appellant and the deceased. The appellant went to the house of his sister Sushila. The appellant and the co-accused again reached the spot in front of the house of the deceased and started to abuse the deceased and the first informant with reference to their cast. Few of the co-accused were armed with weapons. One of the co-accused assaulted the first informant. Jagdish was also assaulted by means of sticks. Rest of the co-accused also charged on the informant party. The appellant took out the revolver, which he had concealed near his waist, and fired at the chest of the deceased. The deceased collapsed. Hearing the sound of the gun shot, persons gathered and the appellant and the co-accused fed away from the spot. Accused came to be arrested. Rest of the co-accused also charged on the informant party. The appellant took out the revolver, which he had concealed near his waist, and fired at the chest of the deceased. The deceased collapsed. Hearing the sound of the gun shot, persons gathered and the appellant and the co-accused fed away from the spot. Accused came to be arrested. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet has been lodged for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323,324, 143, 147, 148 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 25 read with section 3 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, 1989. 4. The appellant had preferred Criminal Bail Application No. 265 of 2018 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected. After the fling of the charge sheet the appellant preferred another application (Exhibit -2) in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018. The later application was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2018 before this Court. By order dated 29th January, 2019, this Court dismissed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the appellant did not deserve to be released on bail during the pendency of trial. 5. The appellant again preferred application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge (Exhibit 23) asserting that the appellant has been suffering from the complications of the head injury sustained by the appellant. There were no facilities in the prison to treat the appellant. Hence, the appellant be released on bail. 6. The learned Sessions Judge was not persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. It was noted that requisite medical treatment was being provided to the appellant. In the backdrop of the nature of the accusation, learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the appellant did not deserve to be released on bail as the possibility of tampering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses was imminent. Thus, the application came to be rejected by giving directions to the authorities to provide requisite medical treatment to the appellant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th April, 2019, the appellant is in appeal. 7. Admit. Taken up for final disposal. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that this Court released the appellant on interim bail. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th April, 2019, the appellant is in appeal. 7. Admit. Taken up for final disposal. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that this Court released the appellant on interim bail. The appellant subsequently surrendered after expiry of the period of temporary bail. 9. We have heard Mr. Vinod Kashid, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Prakash Vare, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2- first informant. 10. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record including the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2018 dated 29th January, 2019. 11. Mr. Kashid, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2018 by order dated 29th January, 2019, the appellant does not profess to pursue the relief of bail on merits. Mr. Kashid submitted that there has been a significant change in the circumstances which entitles the appellant to be enlarged on bail. Three circumstances are pressed into service. One, the timely surrender of the appellant to prison when the appellant was released on interim bail. Second, while seeking bail on the previous occasions, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and this Court as well, the fact that a cross case was registered against the members of the informant party for grave offences including an offence punishable under section 436 of the Penal Code, was not agitated. Third, the delay in the commencement of the trial. 12. As against this, Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP submitted that this Court has dismissed the Appeal No. 941 of 2018 preferred by the appellant, by ascribing elaborate reasons. It has, in terms, been observed that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail during the trial. Thus, the appellant can not be permitted to re-agitate the prayer for bail, on the count that one of the grounds for bail was not urged before this Court. 13. To start with, it is imperative to note that the gravamen of the indictment against the appellant is that of shooting the deceased from a close range. The deceased was allegedly shot at, on the chest. 13. To start with, it is imperative to note that the gravamen of the indictment against the appellant is that of shooting the deceased from a close range. The deceased was allegedly shot at, on the chest. Weapon of assault has allegedly been recovered pursuant to the discovery made by the appellant. There are number of eye witnesses including the wife of the deceased and other immediate family members. 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, it may be apposite to extract the observations in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2018 (Coram: Indrajit Mahanty & Sarang Kotwal, JJ.) dated 29th January, 2019. [12] Having heard both the sides, we find that in this case, the Appellant could not be released on bail. There are eyewitnesses to the incident and they have consistently given statements showing direct involvement of the Appellant in the Crime. The main role is ascribed to this Appellant who had fired at the deceased from the close range. The statements of the first informant and his brother show that the Appellant had gone to the house of his sister Sushila and had come back. Therefore prima facie it cannot be said that Appellant acted on a spur of moment. 13] At this stage of consideration of bail, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mr.Mundargi that, the offence of murder was not made out and that it could be a much lesser offence. We are also unable to agree with Mr.Mundargi on his submissions that since the Appellant was returning from a temple, he had no intention to commit the murder. The material on record shows that after the quarrel had started, the Appellant had gone to his sisters house and had come back. Thereafter he had fired at the deceased. 14] There is recovery of the firearm at the instance of the present Appellant. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with these aspects while rejecting the application for bail. 15] In the light of this discussion, we are of the considered view that the Appellant does not deserve to be released on bail during pendency of the trial. Hence the Appeal is dismissed and the prayer for bail is rejected. 15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations, we find it rather difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Hence the Appeal is dismissed and the prayer for bail is rejected. 15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations, we find it rather difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Kashid that, at this stage, the appellant can be permitted to submit that failure to urge the ground of registration of a cross case constitutes a change in circumstance. Even if maximum latitude is provided to the case of the appellant and it is assumed that cross-case has been registered against the members of the informant party in respect of the very same occurrence, yet the fact remains that there is clear material to show that the appellant had allegedly fired at the deceased from a close range. What accentuates the situation is the fact that after the altercation broke out, the appellant allegedly went to his sister’s house and returned to the spot and thereafter took out the revolver from his waist and shot the deceased. 16. The rest of the grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in our view, do not constitute a material change in the circumstances. The appellant can not draw mileage from the fact that he surrendered on time, after being released on interim bail. It was simply in compliance with the condition on which the interim bail was granted. The submission on behalf of the appellant of the delay in the commencement of trial and the time required for completion of the trial is required to be appreciated in the backdrop of the developments which occurred in the intervening period. In our view, in the peculiar facts of the case, the said factor can not be pressed into service to seek enlargement on bail, at this stage. 17. We are thus not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. We, however, deem it appropriate to request the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai to make an endevour to expeditiously complete the trial. 18. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ORDER 1] The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 2] The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai on whose file Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018 is pending, is requested to make an endevour to complete the trial in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible. Hence, the following order. ORDER 1] The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 2] The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai on whose file Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018 is pending, is requested to make an endevour to complete the trial in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible. 3] In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Interim Application does not survive and also stands disposed of.