JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners along with others are facing trial in case FIR No. 35/2017 registered in Police Station, Gandoh for offences under Sections 302/307/458/436/511/201/120-B RPC and 7/27 Arms Act which is pending disposal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'). 2. Before filing the instant application, the petitioners along with two others had moved a similar application for bail before the trial Court which the trial Court rejected vide its order dated 19.03.2020 in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. The two other accused, namely, Bashir Ahmed and Altaf Hussain were, however, enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved and with a view to seek their enlargement on bail in the aforesaid case, the petitioners have moved this Court through the medium of instant application. 3. Before I advert to the grounds urged by the petitioners seeking concession of bail, it would be appropriate to take note of the prosecution story and the outcome of the trial so far held in the instant case:- “The prosecution story as it goes is that on 08.05.2017 at 2:50 a.m., an information was received from reliable sources that some unknown militants armed with illegal weapons had attacked the Police Picket situate at Tanta and by indiscriminate firing, seriously injured SPOs Kikker Singh and Mohd. Younis. The militants after accomplishing the attack had run away from the spot taking the benefit of dark. On this information, FIR aforesaid was registered in the Police Station, Gandoh for the offences under Sections 307/120-B RFC & 7/27 Arms Act and the investigation set in motion. The injured were referred to Hospital at Thathri for treatment and some jackets and other blood stained items were recovered from the spot. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. too were recorded. Injured Mohd. Younis, however, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital at Jammu on 19.05.2017. Looking to the nature of crime and the manner in which it was accomplished, a Special Team of police headed by ASP Bhaderwah was constituted to investigate the matter. The petitioner Abdul Rashid was arrested on 11.05.2017 and pursuant to his disclosure statement, one AK-47 Rifle along with some empty cartridges was recovered on his identification from Ganori Bhoath, Tanta. Looking to the nature of crime and the manner in which it was accomplished, a Special Team of police headed by ASP Bhaderwah was constituted to investigate the matter. The petitioner Abdul Rashid was arrested on 11.05.2017 and pursuant to his disclosure statement, one AK-47 Rifle along with some empty cartridges was recovered on his identification from Ganori Bhoath, Tanta. On his further statement, the accused Showket Ali, Akhtar Hussain and the petitioner Shafkat Hussain were also apprehended and their confessional statements separately recorded. On the disclosure statement made by the accused Akhtar Hussain and on his identification, two Magazines along with 60 cartridges were recovered and the same were sealed on the spot to preserve the proof. Similarly, on 13.05.2017, as per the confessional statement made by the petitioner Abdul Rashid, one employee of Territorial Army was called and on his confessional statement, accused Altaf Hussain, SPO No. 576 too was arrested on the same day. Samsung mobile phones of the petitioners Abdul Rashid and Shafkat Hussain were also seized and sent for examination to CFSL, Chandigarh to get the expert opinion for retrieving dates and the call details. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the investigation, it was found that AK-47 Rifle, which was recovered and seized at the instance of the petitioner Abdul Rashid, had been acquired from Police Station, Doda with regard to which there was already FIR registered under Section 409 RPC. From the evidence collected and also the call details, it was found that all the accused persons including the petitioners herein were in contract with each other since long and were also in touch with each other even on the day of occurrence. It further revealed that Abdul Rashid alias Abdullah was a LeT militant and was involved in so many militant activities. In the year 2008, he had surrendered before the Territorial Army from where he had come in contact with Bashir Ahmed and two other accused persons. All of them, having criminal intention, had hatched a conspiracy to destabilize the sovereignty of India. It was also found that the petitioner Abdul Rashid and Akhtar Hussain were also involved in so many cases and were in contact with LeT militant Mohd. Ameen. All of them, having criminal intention, had hatched a conspiracy to destabilize the sovereignty of India. It was also found that the petitioner Abdul Rashid and Akhtar Hussain were also involved in so many cases and were in contact with LeT militant Mohd. Ameen. The petitioners and Akhtar Hussain used to be instigated by the aforesaid LeT militant, whereas the accused Bashir Ahmed, an employee of Territorial Army was in contact with his close relative Altaf Hussain, SPO who had been requested by the accused Bashir Ahmad to arrange arms. Said Altaf Hussain, SPO on 03.01.2017 obtained a rifle along with ammunition from the Armory of Police Line with criminal intention. He, instead of getting the rifle issued in his own name, got the same in the name of one Ghulam Nabi by playing a fraud and took it to the house of accused Bashir Ahmed. The accused Bashir Ahmad hatched a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner Abdul Rashid and asked him to get it changed with the weapon from some banned organization. In pursuance of aforesaid conspiracy, the petitioner Abdul Rashid contacted the militant Mohd. Ameen and roped in the accused Showket Ali and Akhtar Hussain in his plan. On 22.04.2017, the petitioner Abdul Rashid got the gun from the house of accused Bashir Ahmad, packed it in a solar plate with the help of accused Showket Ali and took it to Tanta. Thereafter, the petitioner Abdul Rashid contacted Showket Hussain, a teacher in Madrasa and asked him to keep an eye on the movement of the police personnel posted at Police Picket, Tanta. He was also asked to kill the police picket employees and was given the assurance that if he accomplished the task, he would be adjusted in Territorial Army. During the intervening night of 7th/8th May, 2017, the accused Showket Ali and Akhtar Hussain as per pre-plan attacked the police picket at 12:30 a.m. The Accused Showket Ali fired from his Rifle, whereas the accused Akhtar Hussain gave a lit of fire to the stairs of the Picket, as a result of which, both the inmates of the Picket got injured and one of them, SPO Mohd. Younis later on died. Younis later on died. After committing the offence and while the accused Akhtar Hussain was running away, his mobile phone fell down in the way and the accused Showket Ali who was in contact with the petitioner Abdul Rashid asked the petitioner Abdul Rashid to give a call on the mobile phone of Akhtar Hussain so that he could trace out his fallen cell phone. The petitioner Abdul Rashid obliged and on his giving repeated rings to Akhtar Hussain, Akhtar Hussain traced out his mobile phone and took it along with him from the spot. The prosecution witnesses have seen both the aforesaid accused persons running away after committing the crime. After the death of SPO Mohd. Younis, offence under Section 302 RPC was also added and upon receiving the report from the CFSL, Chandigarh, a supplementary challan too was presented before the trial Court. This is in nutshell the prosecution story”. 4. On presentation of challan, the trial Court took cognizance and vide its order dated 22.12.2017 framed charges against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 302/307/458/436/120-B/511/201 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Up to the date, the application for bail was moved before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses and two had been dropped. There is a total of 54 witnesses, proposed to be examined by the prosecution in the instant case. After the dismissal of bail application by the trial Court vide its order dated 19.03.2020 till the matter was heard by this Court, the prosecution had examined 40 witnesses. Only 14 witnesses which of course includes injured Kikker Singh are yet to be examined. 5. It is also relevant to note that two accused who had accomplished the attack on the Police Picket and injured and killed one SPO and injured another, are in jail as under trials and have not moved an application for bail before the trial court, nor they are before me seeking such concession. Out of the four accused, who had applied before the trial court, the two i.e. accused Bashir Ahmed and Altaf Hussain have been granted bail by the trial Court in terms of its order dated 19.03.2020, whereas bail plea of petitioners herein has been rejected. 6. Out of the four accused, who had applied before the trial court, the two i.e. accused Bashir Ahmed and Altaf Hussain have been granted bail by the trial Court in terms of its order dated 19.03.2020, whereas bail plea of petitioners herein has been rejected. 6. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners claim that their role in the crime as ascribed to them by the prosecution is in no manner more than the accused Bashir Ahmed and Altaf Hussain who have been let off on bail by the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court, while rejecting their bail application, has applied two different yardsticks to the similarly situated cases. It is submitted that as per the persecution story, the occurrence has been done by the two persons i.e. Accused Akhtar Hussain and Showket Ali. Both are in the jail and have advisedly not applied for bail. So far as the petitioners and accused Bashir and Altaf are concerned, they have been ascribed a peripheral role in the occurrence and in the absence of any material on record, to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy hatched by all the six accused and in furtherance whereof, the police picket was attacked by Akhtar Hussain and Showket Ali, no offence can be said to have been proved against the petitioners. It is the further argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that going by the statements of 40 witnesses recorded so far during the trial, it is now a foregone conclusion that there is no likelihood of the petitioners being convicted in the trial. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and in that view of the matter, keeping the petitioners languishing in jail would be a travesty of justice. 7. Mr. Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioners took me to statements of some of the important witnesses recorded during trial and submitted that having regard to the nature of evidence that has come on record, it cannot, by any stretching of reasoning, be said that the petitioners were party to a conspiracy hatched by all the accused to accomplish a fatal attack on the police picket Tanta. 8. Per contra, Mr. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned counsel representing the respondents would submit that the disclosure statements made by the petitioners and the consequent recovery of arms and ammunition made on their identification would leave no manner of doubt with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in the horrendous crime committed by them in association with other four accused. It is submitted that petitioner Abdul Rashid is involved in many militancy related activities and it was in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him along with other militants, and accused Showkat Ali, a Madrasa Teacher, the attack on the police picket was accomplished on the intervening night of 7/8th May, 2017. In the said attack, SPO Kikker Singh was seriously injured, whereas SPO Mohd. Younis succumbed to injuries during his treatment at Jammu. It is further submitted by Mr. Malhotra that it is not true that the prosecution witnesses, whose statements have been recorded during the trial, have not supported the prosecution. It is further submitted that father of SPO Mohd. Younis, namely Mohd. Rafiq has supported the prosecution version. Mohd. Rafiq, who had remained with his son deceased SPO Mohd. Younis during his treatment, was told by Mohd. Younis the name of both the accused, who had attacked the police picket. It is argued that the bail plea of the petitioners does not deserve to be considered at this stage, more particularly when the statement of one very important witness i.e. injured Kikker Singh is yet to be recorded. Learned counsel also took a plea that without there being any change of circumstances, after the dismissal of their bail application by the trial Court, the petitioners are not entitled to file the successive bail application before this Court, for, the jurisdiction of this Court and the trial Court in the matter of grant of bail is concurrent. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that considering the stage at which the trial has reached and the nature of evidence that has come on record and that which is yet to be recorded before the trial Court, the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage. 10. It is true that out of the 40 witnesses recorded, many have not supported the prosecution case and even some of them have turned hostile or given up by the prosecution. 10. It is true that out of the 40 witnesses recorded, many have not supported the prosecution case and even some of them have turned hostile or given up by the prosecution. However, the fact remains that some of the important witnesses like the injured Kikker Singh are yet to be examined. Out of the total 54 witnesses cited by the prosecution, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, 40 witnesses have already been examined. That means, the trial is virtually nearing its completion. At this stage, evaluating the evidence for the purpose of considering the question of bail to the petitioners, is neither permissible nor advisable. The petitioners have been roped in the case by the prosecution on the basis of conspiracy theory and as is well settled, the conspiracy is not hatched in the public view or in the presence of witnesses, but has to be inferred from the circumstances. It is without any doubt that the circumstances proving the conspiracy are require to be established by the prosecution by leading sterling evidence and proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, a view is required to be taken by the trial Court after considering whole gamut of evidence, oral as well as circumstantial. While considering whether bail should be granted in a particular case or not, the Court should avoid consideration of details of evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to look for a prima facie case, but a detailed exploration of the merits of the case ought to be avoided. I have deliberately not discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded so far as doing so, may expose the parties to prejudice when the matter is finally considered by the trial Court. 11. In the instant case, the prosecution story as it goes makes out the offences alleged against the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR. The charges in the instant case were framed as far back as on 22.12.2017. Neither the petitioners, nor any other accused have challenged the charges framed against them and have gone for trial. It is true that most of the witnesses in the instant case have been recorded and only few are yet to be recorded. The charges in the instant case were framed as far back as on 22.12.2017. Neither the petitioners, nor any other accused have challenged the charges framed against them and have gone for trial. It is true that most of the witnesses in the instant case have been recorded and only few are yet to be recorded. Since 40 out of 54 witnesses have already been recorded, it would be appropriate to allow the trial Court to record rest of the witnesses without any further waste of time so that the trial is concluded at the earliest and final verdict in the matter is passed. This would also inure to the benefit of the accused if they feel that there is no evidence against them and that they are entitled to acquittal. Without delving much on the issue and borrowing the reasoning given by the trial Court, I am not inclined to accept the bail plea of the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that two other accused, who have been ascribed similar role in the alleged crime, have already been let off on bail by the trial Court and, therefore, on parity, the petitioners are also entitled to be admitted to bail is totally misconceived and deserves to be taken note of only for the purpose of rejection. The trial Court having considered the evidence recorded before it and being, prima facie, of the view that the role ascribed to the other two accused, who were let off on bail by the trial Court, was far less serious than the petitioners herein, granted bail to them. The case of the petitioners and the case of the other two accused, who were released on bail by the trial Court is quite dissimilar looking to the role played by them in the alleged crime. It is well settled that simply because the co-accused has been admitted to bail is no ground to claim bail by the other accused. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. Having given my thoughtful consideration to all aspects of the matter in the light of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail, in the heinous offences they are charged with at this stage. 12. Having given my thoughtful consideration to all aspects of the matter in the light of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail, in the heinous offences they are charged with at this stage. Accordingly, this application is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial by recording the remaining witnesses and conclude the same as early as possible so that the petitioners, who are under trial prisoners are served justice at the earliest.