ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.B. Naik, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Prajapati, learned counsel for and on behalf of applicant-accused, learned advocate Mr. Ekant Ahuja, for the original informant and Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. This regular bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short) by the applicant-accused in connection with C.R. No. 11191005220281 of 2022, registered at Khadia Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. 3. According to the prosecution case, accused no. 1-Montu @ Namdar Gandhi is the cousin brother of the complainant-Pawan Mukesh Gandhi. Accused no. 1 married to sister of the complainant in the year 1992 which was not acceptable by the family members, as a result of which, there were inter-se family disputes. The father of the complainant had executed the Will in the year 2020, wherein sister of the complainant was not given any share in the property and therefore, accused no. 1 and his wife were aggrieved by the Will executed by the father of the complainant. Deceased-Rakesh Mehta stood in the witness in the Will and was very much associated with the family of the complainant. Accused no. 1 was also aggrieved by the relationship of the deceased with the complainant. 4. In the aforesaid facts, accused no. 1 and his accomplices, hatched the criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased Rakesh Mehta. In order to execute the criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly formed on 08.06.2022 with a common object to kill the deceased. It is a case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident, when deceased and his friend Yogesh Joshi passing nearby the office of accused no. 1, he was brutally assaulted by baseball bat. It is alleged that accused no. 1-Montu Gandhi and five to six other persons, being a member of unlawful assembly, assaulted the deceased, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The complaint came to be filed by the complainant Pawankumar Gandhi inter alia alleging that Montu Gandhi had assaulted the deceased and other persons, whose faces covered with the mask and handkerchiefs. The complaint came to be filed by the complainant Pawankumar Gandhi inter alia alleging that Montu Gandhi had assaulted the deceased and other persons, whose faces covered with the mask and handkerchiefs. His further statement was recorded on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2022, wherein name of present applicant-accused and accused no. 3-Jayraj Desai have been disclosed with the explanation that why their names earlier did not disclose in the FIR. After registration of the FIR, names of the present applicant-accused and co-accused no. 3 have been referred by the witnesses viz. Yogesh Joshi and Josh Jugnu. So far role of the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he along with accused no. 3 were present in the office of the complainant and in order to execute the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused no. 1, they were armed with baseball bat, assaulted the deceased. The applicant herein arrested on 18.06.2022. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency has filed the charge-sheet against four persons and two unknown persons shown as absconding in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet. The applicant moved regular bail application before the Sessions Court concerned being Criminal Misc. Application No. 6583 of 2022, which came to be rejected vide order dated 27.09.2022 by Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. This is a successive bail application as the earlier application filed before this Court was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh application before the Court concerned after filing the charge-sheet. 5. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-accused submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is in this context he submitted that the complainant had not seen the incident and was not present at the place. Referring to the panchnama of the place of the incident and sketch prepared by the authority, he submitted that it is impossible to see the incident from the street viz. Hajirani- Pol as there is a huge distance and the area is highly congested and therefore, if the person was in the driving seat of the car, he could not see the incident which alleged to have been occurred at the place mentioned in the case papers. In such circumstances, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the story of the prosecution case is that the complainant had seen the offence and the offender is highly improbable. In such circumstances, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the story of the prosecution case is that the complainant had seen the offence and the offender is highly improbable. The second contention is that had the complainant be present at the scene of offence, then he could have disclosed the name of the accused in the FIR at the first instance i.e. on 08.06.2022. In the facts of the present case, except accused no. 1, the face of the accused covered with mask and handkerchief. The name of the present applicant has been disclosed by the complainant on the next day i.e. 09.06.2022. Thus, prima facie there is no evidence to suggest that the present applicant-accused no. 2 was present at the scene of offence and had participated in the alleged conspiracy to kill the deceased. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik submitted that considering the nature of evidence, and when accused is unknown to the witnesses, it is desirable on the part of the Investigating Agency to conduct the Test Identification Parade. In the present case, no such T.I. Parade conducted by the Investigating Agency which creates a doubt about the complicity of the present applicant in the alleged offence. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that nothing discovered or recovered from the applicant-accused as alleged weapon-baseball bats recovered from the accused no. 1. 8. Lastly, it was urged that accused no. 4-Sunil Bajaniya has been considered by this Court and therefore, case of the applicant may be considered. 9. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the applicant is in custody since 18.06.2022. After filing the charge-sheet, trial will not likely to conclude in near future and it would take considerable time. The applicant-accused is having responsibility to feed his family and his permanent residence of Ahmedabad and there is no any chances to flee away from the justice. In such circumstances, it was submitted that when there is no prima facie case against the present applicant for the alleged offence, discretion may kindly be exercised, by enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Ekant Ahuja and learned APP Ms. In such circumstances, it was submitted that when there is no prima facie case against the present applicant for the alleged offence, discretion may kindly be exercised, by enlarging the applicant on bail. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Ekant Ahuja and learned APP Ms. Krina Calla vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to believe that the applicant was present at the scene of offence and being a member of unlawful assembly and in order to execute conspiracy, he played active role in committing the offence. It was submitted that the contentions raised herein by the accused cannot be considered at this stage and it is to be tried at the time of trial. Referring to the injuries mentioned in Column No. 17 of P.M. Report, it was submitted that in all there are 17 multiple injuries found from body of the deceased which facts sufficient to infer that the alleged act could not be executed by one or two persons. Thus, reiterating the facts of the affidavit of the informant, it was submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction and in the interest of society at large as alleged offence is against the society, no case is made out for exercising discretionary powers and therefore, this application may not be entertained. 11. Having considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue arise is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that applicant has committed the offence? 12. In the facts of the present case, the incident took place on 08.06.2022 at about 16:30 hours at the place mentioned in the charge-sheet case papers. The complainant, on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2022, with explanation, has disclosed the names of the present applicant-accused and accused nos. 3, alleging that they had participated in the alleged offence and assaulted the deceased by weapon-baseball bat. The P.M. Report further reveals that deceased have suffered 17 multiple external injuries. It is a case of the prosecution that after the incident, the accused run away from the scene of offence. 3, alleging that they had participated in the alleged offence and assaulted the deceased by weapon-baseball bat. The P.M. Report further reveals that deceased have suffered 17 multiple external injuries. It is a case of the prosecution that after the incident, the accused run away from the scene of offence. It is settled law that the grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court and it is regulated to large extend by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In that view of the matter, considering the role attributed to the present applicant herein and evidence in support of the charge, this Court is of considered opinion that there is a prima facie evidence against the applicant, involving him in the alleged offence and therefore, without expressing further on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the present case is not a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the applicant on bail requires to be exercised. This Court is disagree with the contentions raised by the applicant that he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Grant of bail to the one of the accused does not give a right to bail to a co-accused. Recently, in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai, Manu/SC/0298/2021, the Apex Court on the subject of parity, held that in deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplicity assessment, which again cannot pass muster under the law. In the facts of the present case, accused no. 4-Sunil Bajaniya has been granted bail mainly on the ground that his name was disclosed after considerable time that too, by the witness Josh Jugnu, whose statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Whereas the name of the present applicant accused disclosed on the very next date of the incident for which the complainant has explained the non-disclosure of his name in his further statement recorded on 09.06.2022. Thus, the principal of parity claimed by the applicant accused is not acceptable to the case of the present applicant. Thus, the principal of parity claimed by the applicant accused is not acceptable to the case of the present applicant. The other contentions raised hereinabove cannot be accepted at this stage as while considering the plea of bail, the Court should only look at the prima facie material and should not go into merits of the case by appreciation of evidence. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, application is without merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant application. Rule is discharged.