JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J. 1. This successive bail application is filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 11195061200346 of 2020 registered with Dantiwada Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 120-B, 34 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta with learned advocate Mr. Popatji Solanki for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the original complainant. Submissions of the Parties: 3. The learned advocate for the applicant-accused submitted that this is the successive bail application after withdrawing the earlier bail application vide order dated 23.04.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14362 of 2020 by the Coordinate Bench as pending the said application, charge-sheet came to be filed. He submitted that the applicant-accused is an innocent person and falsely implicated in the offence in question. It is submitted that in the present case, the applicant is charged with the aforesaid offences, however, the ingredients of the said offences have not been satisfied against the present applicant. Further, he submitted that original accused No. 5 namely Dashrathji Hariji Dhepa (Thakor) has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14432 of 2020, wherein, it is observed that “considering the fact that the witnesses have attributed iron pipe to two accused persons Kanaji and present applicant, however, during the course of investigation only one iron pipe has been recovered under the joint discovery panchnama” and accordingly, he sought parity. 3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has no connection in the crime in question. Besides, the applicant has family roots in the society and therefore, the applicant is not likely to flee away from justice. It is submitted that the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and hence, there is no possibility of tampering and hampering with the evidence. That the applicant will abide by whatever conditions imposed by the Court. Besides, the applicant has family roots in the society and therefore, the applicant is not likely to flee away from justice. It is submitted that the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and hence, there is no possibility of tampering and hampering with the evidence. That the applicant will abide by whatever conditions imposed by the Court. The learned advocate for the applicant has further vehemently submitted that there is no direct involvement of the applicant - accused in the present case so far as allegation is concerned. It is, therefore, prayed that discretion may kindly be exercised and grant bail to the applicant-accused. 3.2 In support, the learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon following decisions: (i) Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65674 (ii) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 66694 (iii) Sudhir Kumar Kad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67455 (iv) Pawandeepsingh Mahendrasingh Kohli vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67846 (v) Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia vs. State of Gujarat, 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67497 (vi) Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012 (1) GLH 93 SC 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the original complainant, while strenuously opposing the present application, submitted that the applicant is charged with the aforesaid serious offences and from the charge-sheet papers, prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. He submitted that considering the role attributed to the present applicant and the person enlarged by the Coordinate Bench vide above-referred order, parity cannot be applied in the case on hand. 4.1 The learned advocate for the original complainant, relying upon the statements of the material witnesses, including the mother of the deceased, who is also an eye-witness to the incident, submitted that the present applicant has played overt role and inflicted blows to the deceased with Scythe (Dhariya) and therefore, there is strong prima facie case against the present applicant. It is submitted that even from the statement of the person whose vehicle was supposed to be used in the commission of the offence in question has given the name of the present applicant. It is submitted that it is a matter of honour killing and pre-planned conspiracy and it is quite possible that witnesses may be hampered. It is submitted that even from the statement of the person whose vehicle was supposed to be used in the commission of the offence in question has given the name of the present applicant. It is submitted that it is a matter of honour killing and pre-planned conspiracy and it is quite possible that witnesses may be hampered. Further, the life of wife of the deceased is still at risk. 4.2 It is further strenuously submitted that even otherwise, after filing of the charge-sheet, there is no change of circumstances. Ultimately, the learned APP has opposed the grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence, involvement of the applicant - accused. 5. The learned APP for the respondent-State also, while vehemently opposing the present application, submitted that the present applicant is arraigned as accused for the serious offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 120-B, 34 and 188 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Accordingly, considering the gravity of offence, it is urged that this application may not be entertained and it is urged to be rejected. 6. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties. Following material aspects have been weighed with the Court: (a) the applicant-accused is accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 120-B, 34 and 188 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. (b) Charge-sheet in the case is filed. (c) this is the successive bail application after withdrawal of the earlier bail application and there appears no change of circumstances. (d) as per the catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, there are mainly three factors which are required to be considered by this Court i.e. prima facie case, availability of applicant-accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses, including the material witnesses, there appears to be prima-facie case against the present applicant. Nonetheless, this being an application for bail, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same in detail. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses, including the material witnesses, there appears to be prima-facie case against the present applicant. Nonetheless, this being an application for bail, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same in detail. (e) so far as grant of bail to the co-accused and parity to the present applicant is concerned, considering the role attributed to the present applicant and the co-accused, parity is not applicable in the present case. (f) there appears no material change in circumstances after submission of the charge-sheet and that, withdrawal of earlier application. 7. Thus, having regard to the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material available on record, vis-a-vis taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, and the role attributed to the present applicant-accused, the Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant. 8. The Court has also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and this being discretionary relief, which requires to be granted judiciously, the said decisions would be of no help to the present applicant. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, this application fails and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. 9.1 However, it is made clear that at the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima-facie observations made by this Court in the present order.