JUDGMENT : DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J. 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-11211015220028 of 2022 registered with the Dhragandhra City Police Station, Surenranagar of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the G.P. Act. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present application may be summarized as under: 2.1 That the complainant lodged the impugned FIR on 23.01.2022 against total four persons wherein the present applicant-accused has been shown as an accused No. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that on 22.01.2022, at around 8:00 O’clock in the night hours, while the complainant along with his uncle were standing on the side of the road near his house, the accused Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Shankarbhai @ Salim Dudabhai Parmar, Vinodbhai Dudabhai Parmar and Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar, who were residing next to his house, had passed through the said road and at that time, as the said accused persons were staring them, the complainant also looked towards them, upon which, all the aforesaid persons got instigated and started abusing the complainant and his uncle. At that time, the accused No. 4, namely, Kishorbhai Chaturbhai Parmar also came there and he also started abusing them. Thereafter, all the accused persons threatened them to stay there, they will come back with the weapons. Therefore, upon hearing the shouting, the cousin of the complainant, namely, Krunalbhai Rameshbhai also reached there and, thereafter, all of them left the place. When they reached near the house of one Tapubhai Devjibhai Parmar at Ambedkarnagar, all the accused persons came from opposite side with deadly weapons wherein Shankarbhai @ Salim Dudabhai Parmar was having Axe in his hand, accused Vinodbhai Dudabhai Parmar was having wooded log in his hand, accused Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar was having scythe in his hand and accused Kishorbhai Chaturbhai Parmar was having iron pipe his hand and started quarrel with them. The accused Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar inflicted a scythe blow on the head of the uncle of the complainant. The said Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar also inflicted scythe blow on the head of Krunalbhai Rameshbhai due to which he fell down. The accused Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar inflicted a scythe blow on the head of the uncle of the complainant. The said Rajubhai Chaturbhai Parmar also inflicted scythe blow on the head of Krunalbhai Rameshbhai due to which he fell down. Accused Kishanbhai @ Kishor inflicted a pipe blow on the head of the complainant. Accused Kishorbhai and Rajubhai also inflicted blows to the mother of the complainant on the different parts of her body. Accused Vinodbhai Dudabhai also very randomly inflicted blows with the wooden log to us. Thereafter, as the other relatives reached at the place of incident, all the accused persons left the place by administering thereat of dire consequences. Thereafter, the mother and sister-in-law of the complainant took him to the Government Hospital at Dhragandhra and thereafter shifted to the C.U. Shah Hospital, Surendrangar for further treatment. The uncle of the complainant Rameshbhai Khimjibhai Parmar, the mother of the complainant and the cousin brother of the complainant, namely, Krunal were also brought to the C.U. Shah Hospital, Surendranagar for the purpose of treatment who were admitted in the hospital. It is also alleged in the complaint that the reason behind occurrence of the said incident was that almost about four years ago from the date of the incident, all the accused persons used to sit in the society of the complainant for which once the complainant reprimanded them and keeping grudge of the same, all the accused persons made an assault upon the complainant and his relatives. Subsequently, as Krunal Rameshbhai Parmar succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 came to be added. Submissions on behalf of the applicant: 3. Learned advocate Mr. N.P. Zaveri appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the so called incident took place on 22.01.2022 and the impugned FIR came to be lodged on 23.01.2022. The applicant accused was arrested on 23.01.2022 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Zaveri has further submitted that the allegations against the applicant-accused are that the applicant-accused inflicted injury by scythe (Dhariya) on the head of the deceased. However, looking to the injury certificate of the deceased issued by C.U. Shah Hospital, it reveals that nowhere in the said certificate it is stated that the deceased received any injury by scythe (Dhariya). Even it is stated in the certificate that the injury caused to the deceased was by Axe (Kulhado). However, looking to the injury certificate of the deceased issued by C.U. Shah Hospital, it reveals that nowhere in the said certificate it is stated that the deceased received any injury by scythe (Dhariya). Even it is stated in the certificate that the injury caused to the deceased was by Axe (Kulhado). It is also submitted that one of the witnesses and injured victim, namely, Rameshbhai Khimjibhai Parmar in the history given before the doctor has clearly stated that he was assaulted by ten persons armed with Dhariya (scythe), Kuhado (axe), iron pipe, however, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the other six persons have not been joined as the accused persons and are shielded by the Investigating Officer and the applicant along with the other co-accused have been falsely implicated in the present offence. Learned advocate Mr. Zahveri has also submitted that looking to the statements of all the interested witnesses, it appears that they all have stated that the applicant had given one Dhariya (scythe) blow on the head of the deceased due to which the deceased succumbed. However, from the injury certificate and the postmortem report, it transpires that the deceased had not received any scythe blow (Dhariya) on his head but several injuries were found on his head which resulted in his death due to cardio respiratory failure. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Zaveri has also submitted that the accused Nos. 2, namely, Vinodbhai Dudabhai Parmar and accused No. 4-Kishanbhai @ Kishor Chaturbhai Parmar have already been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and by the trial court. Therefore, on the ground of law of parity also, the present application may be entertained and the applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State: 5. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta. Learned APP Mr. Mehta has submitted that the role attributed to the other co-accused persons is quite different and distinct to the role attributed to the present applicant-accused. It is further submitted that initially, the FIR came to be lodged under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well as section 135 of the G.P. Act. However, subsequently, as the injured victim succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 came to be added. Learned APP Mr. It is further submitted that initially, the FIR came to be lodged under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well as section 135 of the G.P. Act. However, subsequently, as the injured victim succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 came to be added. Learned APP Mr. Mehta has also submitted that at the time of submission of the charge-sheet before the competent court, section 302 had already been added which was well within the knowledge of the applicant-accused. It is also submitted that even at the time of filing bail application before the trial court, provisions of Section 302 was very well disclosed in the memo of the application. However, at the time of preferring the present bail application, there is suppression of Section 302 of the IPC which clearly indicates the intention of the applicant-accused to obtain the favourable order by suppressing the material fact. Learned APP Mr. Mehta has submitted that the bail application of the applicant-accused may be rejected on two grounds; firstly that the role of the present applicant-accused is graver than the role of the other co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail and secondly, that the applicant-accused has tried to suppress the materials fact just with a view to mislead the Court for obtaining a favourable order. Therefore, the present bail application is required to be rejected with exemplary cost. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and also perused the entire evidence available on record. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant-accused along with the other accused are charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 135 of the G.P. Act. That as per the case of the complainant and the prosecution all the accused including the applicant herein with a common intention attacked the deceased by scythe (Dhariya), Axe (Kuhado), iron pipe, wooden log and killed the cousin of the complainant. That as per the case of the complainant and the prosecution all the accused including the applicant herein with a common intention attacked the deceased by scythe (Dhariya), Axe (Kuhado), iron pipe, wooden log and killed the cousin of the complainant. As per the postmortem report, injuries found on the body of the deceased are (i) incised wound in size 6.5 cm x 1.25 cm present over left parietal region of head scalp-deep and bone deep and (ii) incised wound in size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm present over left parietal region of head scalp-deep which might be the major cause of the death of the deceased. Thus, from the postmortem report, it clearly appears that the deceased has received multiple injuries on his head and looking to the contents of the FIR and the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, it is very clearly stated therein that the applicant-accused had given a blow with the scythe (Dhariya) on the head of the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant-accused has been named in the FIR since beginning and even the statements of relevant witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 8. At this stage, I would like to refer to some relevant provisions of IPC with regard to the case on hand. 9. Chapter 16 of Indian Penal Code deals with offences against human body. As per Section 319 I.P.C. ‘hurt’ is described as under: “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.” ‘Hurt’ is commonly known as ‘simple hurt/injury’ is punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. 10. In the present case, the allegations leveled against the applicant-accused as revealed from the FIR are that the accused tried to kill the deceased by inflicting blow on his head with the scythe (Dhariya) and also threatened the other witnesses of dire consequences. The version of the prosecution as revealed from the FIR is corroborated by the depositions made by the other witnesses. 11. So far as the medical evidence upon which the learned advocate for the applicant has put much emphasis is concerned, I would like to refer to the observations made in the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.” 12. A similar view has been taken in Mani Ram & Ors. Vs State of U.P. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289; Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 239 and State of U.P. v. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566 . 13. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that “In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.” 14. In the present case, it appears that the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case that the accused assaulted the Complainant and the deceased several times and also caused severe injury to them. Thus, based on the evidence on record, it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence as alleged under Section 323 IPC. 15. Section 307 of the Penal Code reads thus: “307. Attempt to murder - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts - When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. Illustrations: (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. Attempts by life convicts - When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. Illustrations: (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 16. From the perusal of the provision of Section 307 IPC it can be seen that the first part of Section 307 refers to “an act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder.” The second part of Section 307, which carries a heavier punishment, refers to “hurt” caused in pursuance of such an “act.” The essential ingredients for an offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC the most important ingredient is intention and knowledge. 17. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. 18. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in Section 307 IPC. 18. Here in the case on hand, the allegations levelled against the applicant-accused are that he made an assault upon the complainant and the deceased with the scythe (Dhariya) and cause severe injuries to them. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer that the present applicant-accused was having scythe (Dhariya) in his hand and he gave a blow on the head of the deceased with the said scythe (Dhariya). It is also pertinent to note that the quarrel started with some altercation between the accused persons and the complainant side. Thereafter, after some time, the accused persons came with the deadly weapons in their hands as mentioned in the FIR and started inflicting blows to the other side which clearly shows the intention on the part of the accused persons. Moreover, the role attributed to the applicant-accused is that he has given blow on the head of the deceased with the scythe (Dhariya) which shows the knowledge on the part of the applicant-accused that the same may result into the death of the victim. Further, during the course of investigation, the said weapon (Dhariya/scythe) used in the commission of the offence was also recovered by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the applicant-accused. It has also come on record that one another offence has also been registered against the applicant-accused. The applicant-accused and the complainant are residing in the same vicinity and, therefore, there are all possible chances that the applicant-accused may try to influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses and also try to tamper with the evidence during the trial. Over and above the same, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant-accused very deliberately has tried to mislead the Court by not disclosing or rather by suppressing the fact as regards Section 302 of the IPC in the memo of the petition which fact the applicant had very well mentioned in the application filed before the trial court seeking regular bail. Except the fact that the present application lacks merit, this Court has also taken very serious note of such a deliberate act on the part of the applicant-accused in suppressing the material fact as noted above. Therefore, I am inclined to dismiss the present application with exemplary cost. 19. So far as the ground of parity raised by the learned advocate for the applicant is concerned, I would like to quote the very recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Cri.) No. 9431 of 2023, wherein Justice Bela M. Trivedi, speaking for the Bench, has observed thus: “The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL and KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/operator/controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Court has been challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the same is pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the appellant’s role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. It was also observed that the appellant’s role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court.” 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present application fails and is hereby rejected with cost quantified to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, a receipt whereof shall be placed in the matter. Rule is discharged.