ORDER : 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with an F.I.R. being C.R. No.11210025202113 of 2020 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Dist.Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 269, 188, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the first informant is a friend of the deceased and on 29.04.2020 at around 6.00 p.m. when the first informant was out to take vegetables from near Gyan Sagar School at that time, he had seen the deceased going towards his society at around 7.00 pm., and therefore, the first informant had followed him. Thereafter, when the deceased reached near a vacant plot opposite to Plot no.180, Vrundan Nagar Society, accused person namely, Raju @ Raju Bajrangdal Yadav (i.e. the present applicant) was standing there and started arguing with the deceased and thereby pushed him and, therefore, the deceased had fallen on the ground and at that time, from the vacant plot the accused person namely Sanjay Yadav (brother of the applicant) came with a Baseball bat in his hand and another accused namely Suraj @ Vakil Yadav also had having Baseball bat in his hand and his brother namely Ajay Yadav and Prakash Yadav also had bat and stump in their hands whereas, Chandan Upadhyay had a wooden log and his brother namely Suraj Upadhyay had a sword and Shivam Dubey had a wooden log and all of them came on the road and started beating the deceased randomly, wherein, the accused namely, Raju @ Raju Bajrangdal Yadav had taken out a dagger from around his waist and gave blows on the deceased on neck and chest and Suraj Upadhyay had beaten with his sword on the face and all of them had randomly beaten the deceased with their weapons and because of shouting, people had gathered and all of them had ran away and when the first informant ran towards the deceased, he was badly bleeding and his face was badly injured and had injuries on neck, chest and stomach and as the relatives of the deceased had came, they took him to the hospital and the complainant had also gone to the hospital and after 15 minutes, the doctor on duty had declared him dead. Therefore, subsequently, the said F.I.R. came to be filed against the accused persons as narrated in the F.I.R. in detail. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no enmity with the deceased and thereby there was no motive to beat him. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no recovery or discovery of weapon from the applicant and therefore also, the applicant is falsely implicated in the present offence. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no enmity with the deceased and thereby there was no motive to beat him. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no recovery or discovery of weapon from the applicant and therefore also, the applicant is falsely implicated in the present offence. He has submitted that from the above facts, it can be safely submitted that the first informant had used exaggerated version and tried to implicate as many persons as he can in the alleged offence and, therefore, the said version cannot be solely relied upon so as to keep the applicant behind the bars. He has further submitted that over and above, the first informant being the socalled eyewitness to the incident, there is only one another eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution in the chargesheet, which does not attribute any specific weapon to the applicant or any specific role to the applicant and, therefore also, the applicant is sought to be falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has submitted that the co-accused namely, Dharmesh Sadabrige Yadav (accused no.3), who has allegedly instigated the co-accused while committing the offence by saying that, “aa have ubho na thavo joie ane ubho thase to apanne marse”,( he should not stand and if he stands,he will beat us”) has been released on bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3858 of 2020 by order dated 24.08.2020 and the co-accused namely, Suraj @ Vakil Ramachal Yadav (accused no.1), has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.14756 of 2020 and, therefore also, the applicant may be released on bail. He has submitted that there is no recovery or discovery of alleged weapon of offence from the applicant. The clothes recovered by drawing recovery panchnama are also silent about any blood stains and therefore also, it can be safely submitted that the applicant is false implicated in the alleged offence. Lastly, it is urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Lastly, it is urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Having perused the materials 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, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. This Court has considered following aspects; (i) Prima facie the role of the applicant as per the chargesheet appears to be that he had pushed the deceased; (ii) The investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed; (iii) Prima facie there are no antecedents of the applicant; (iv) The first informant being socalled eyewitness to the incident, and there is only one another eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution in the chargesheet, which does not attribute any specific weapon to the applicant or any specific role to the applicant; (v) The co-accused namely, Dharmesh Sadabrige Yadav (accused no.3), who has allegedly instigated the co-accused while committing the offence, has been released on bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3858 of 2020 and the co-accused namely, Suraj @ Vakil Ramachal Yadav (accused no.1),who has assaulted the deceased with a wooden bat, has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.14756 of 2020; (vi) The applicant is in judicial custody since 06.05.2020 i.e. almost one year. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 8. Application No.14756 of 2020; (vi) The applicant is in judicial custody since 06.05.2020 i.e. almost one year. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 8. In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an F.I.R. being C.R. No.11210025202113 of 2020 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Dist.Surat, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned 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 his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate every Monday for initial six months and thereafter, on alternate Monday of every English calendar month, for a period of six months, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (f) furnish latest 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 the Trial Court; 9. 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 concerned Trial Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 10. 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. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 11. 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. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 12. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.