ORDER : 1. This is an application at the instance of an accused praying for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report being C.R. No. 11824001230291 of 2023 registered with the Vyara Police Station, Tapi for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution version in brief is that in the year 2020, the daughter of the complainant, i.e, the deceased, namely, Anjali got married with one Rohitbhai Sambhajibhai Koli. As the said marriage was an inter-caste marriage, the family members were against the said marriage. It was a love marriage. It is alleged that since last two years, the deceased was residing with her husband Rohit at Vyara in the Vrundavan Dham Society on rent. It is alleged that on 24.03.2023, when the complainant was returning to his home from his work, at around 8:00 O’ clock in the night hours, the complainant received a call from his another daughter to immediately reached to home. Therefore, the complainant immediately reached to his house where the daughter of the complainant, namely, Sneha told him that deceased Anjali is serious. Thereafter, the complainant disclosed the said fact to his employer Anilbhai, whereupon Anilbhai immediately reached to the house of the complainant in his car. Thereafter, the complainant went to Vyara General Hospital in the car of Anilbhai. Upon reaching there, he found his wife and daughter Priti crying and upon making inquiry from them, they told the complainant that Anjali was not well since last two days and therefore she was admitted to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead. It is alleged that thereafter they went to see the body of the deceased and found that there were some marks of injuries on her left cheek and on the neck. She was also frothing at the mouth. The fingers were also found to be bend. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the complainant asked Rohit about the same, he told that on the fateful day, at around 8:00 O’ clock in the morning, he left the house and went to his shop at Songadh. His mother Sunandaben was there along with Anjali at the house. When Rohit returned to home at around 6:45 in the evening, he found Anjali sleeping and when he tried to wake her up, Anjali did not wake up. His mother Sunandaben was there along with Anjali at the house. When Rohit returned to home at around 6:45 in the evening, he found Anjali sleeping and when he tried to wake her up, Anjali did not wake up. Therefore, when Rohit tried to wake her up by pulling her hands, her hands were found to be stiffed and there was foaming at the mouth. There were some injuries on her cheek. Therefore, Rohit started screaming due to which his mother and the people of the society immediately rushed there. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. A case of an accidental death also came to be lodged by the Rohit. Thereafter, the postmortem of the deceased was performed in which the cause of death is shown that the deceased died due to ‘smothering’(to kill somebody by covering his/her face so that he/she cannot breathe). It is alleged that the wife of the complainant told him that whenever Anajli called her, she often complained that her mother-in-law used to make quarrel with her as she had a love marriage with her son. Hence, the impugned FIR. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Balram Jain has submitted that the criminal complaint was registered on 26.03.2023 and the present applicant-accused came to be arrested on 27.03.2023 and since then, she is in jail. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed by the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has submitted that the applicant-accused has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of suspicion and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident as no one has witnessed the same. Even the complainant is also a hearsay evidence and on the basis of assumption and presumption, charges have been levelled against the applicant-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has further submitted that initially the FIR came to be lodged against two suspects, i.e, the applicant-accused and her son Rohit. However, at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, Rohit has been shown as witness and the other two persons have been arraigned as accused. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has further submitted that initially the FIR came to be lodged against two suspects, i.e, the applicant-accused and her son Rohit. However, at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, Rohit has been shown as witness and the other two persons have been arraigned as accused. It is further submitted that the son of the applicant-accused got married with the girl who belonged to Marvadi Community which was disliked by the applicant-accused and, therefore, the applicant-accused along with her husband, conspired to eliminate the deceased and as a part of such conspiracy they have acted in a particular manner by giving a contract to the accused No.3-Hiralal @ Anna Abhimanyu to kill the deceased by paying ransom. It is further submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant-accused is that at the time of commission of the offence, she was standing outside the house to see that no one comes. Learned advocate Mr. Jain has submitted that the son of the applicant-accused and the deceased were residing on the top floor and on the ground floor, the owner of the property was residing and as per the statement of the owner of the house, he did not see the applicant-accused standing outside the house on the fateful day. 4. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Jain prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the present applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing for the applicant has submitted that the role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the compilation of the charge-sheet papers. Learned APP Mr. Shah has further submitted that the son of the applicant-accused got married with the deceased who belonged to the Marvadi community. It was an inter-caste marriage and, therefore, the applicant-accused was against the said marriage and since beginning, the applicant-accused disliked the deceased. It is further submitted that first the applicant-accused started harassing the deceased and tried to break down the marriage, however, they could not get success in their attempt and due to such harassment, the son of the applicant-accused started residing separately. It is further submitted that first the applicant-accused started harassing the deceased and tried to break down the marriage, however, they could not get success in their attempt and due to such harassment, the son of the applicant-accused started residing separately. It is also submitted that later the applicant and her husband hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, and as a part of the said conspiracy, they gave a contract to a third person to kill the deceased by giving ransom. Thereafter, as a part of the said conspiracy with a sole intention to keep watch on the daily routine activities of the deceased, the applicant-accused went to the house of her son at Songadh and started residing with them. Learned APP Mr. Shah has further submitted that on the fateful day, the applicant-accused provided the details about the movement of the deceased to the other co-accused persons. She was in constant touch with the other co-accused which is evident from the CDR collected by the Investigating Officer. Learned APP Mr. Shah has submitted that, therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether I should exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant-accused?. 7. It cannot be gainsaid that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is wide ranging. Nonetheless, it has been consistently emphasized in several judicial verdicts that exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court when considering grant of bail, ought to be in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh And Others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 , a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had laid down the following guiding principles while exercising the power to grant bail:- “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case…… The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail – more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The consideration being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 8. In a recent decision, penned by Justice Dr. In a recent decision, penned by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia And Another, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , a case where the offence committed was under Section 302 of the IPC, trial was pending before the Sessions Court and the bail application filed by the respondent was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but was subsequently allowed by the High Court, the following pertinent observations have been made : “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. xxx 14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.” 9. Coming back to the case on hand, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. The FIR was registered by the father of the deceased on 26.03.2023 against two suspected persons due to the murder of his daughter Anjali. After registration of the complaint, the investigation was ensued by the police and during the course of investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police. It appears on the scrutiny of the record that the allegations levelled in the FIR are very grave in nature. It is a case of contract killing and the applicant-accused is the kingpin of the said conspiracy. A very specific and clear allegations have been levelled against the accused persons in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. The son of the applicant-accused got married with a girl from Marvadi community which was disliked by the applicant-accused since beginning. It also appears that after the marriage, when the deceased went to her marital home, the applicant-accused started torturing her in order to break down the said marriage, but they could not get success. However, due to such harassment, the son of the applicant-accused decided to part ways from his parents and started residing separately with the deceased. It also appears that after the marriage, when the deceased went to her marital home, the applicant-accused started torturing her in order to break down the said marriage, but they could not get success. However, due to such harassment, the son of the applicant-accused decided to part ways from his parents and started residing separately with the deceased. Thereafter, the applicant-accused along with her husband, hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased and for that hired the accused No.3 in the charge-sheet, namely, Hiralal @ Anna Abhimanyu Jadav to kill the deceased on payment of ransom. Thereafter, all the accused persons, altogether, hatched a conspiracy and as a part of the conspiracy, the applicant-accused, went to the house of her son and started residing with them so that she can keep watch on the movement of the deceased. All the sequence of events have been very clearly narrated in the charge-sheet papers that how the accused persons hatched the conspiracy, how the other two accused persons reached at the place of occurrence on the date of the incident and on which vehicle they went there has also been mentioned. It also appears from the record that on the date of the incident, the applicant-accused was in contract touch with the other two accused persons which is apparent from the Cal Data Record (CDR) collected by the Investigating Officer. It also appears from the charge-sheet papers that once verbal altercation also took place between the father of the deceased and the husband of the complainant and at that time, the father of the deceased hurled abuses to the husband of the applicant-accused. It is clear from what has been projected before this Court that the marriage between the son of the applicant-accused and the deceased was causing tension within the family and the applicant-accused was unhappy with the said marriage. Thus, keeping all these in mind, the accused persons decided to kill the deceased in which the present applicant-accused has played a very vital role. The incident took place within the four corners of the house and, therefore, it might be that no one who has witnessed the said incident. As stated in the FIR when Rohit left the house in the morning, his mother Sunandaben, i.e, the applicant-accused was there along with the deceased at the house. The incident took place within the four corners of the house and, therefore, it might be that no one who has witnessed the said incident. As stated in the FIR when Rohit left the house in the morning, his mother Sunandaben, i.e, the applicant-accused was there along with the deceased at the house. Thus, all the aforestated aspects clearly establishes the nexus of the present applicant-accused with the present offence. From the aforesaid, it appears that there is a chain of evidence against the applicant-accused, connecting her with the commission of the crime. 10. Now I would like to observe something about the circumstantial evidence. Evidence, in general, can be referred to as ‘fact findings’. Therefore, evidence helps to determine what actually happened. It allows the court to gain insight into the depths of the case. Circumstantial evidence can be defined as that evidence which attempts to prove the facts in dispute by proving other facts. These facts revolve around the circumstances surrounding the case. Circumstantial evidence is generally not taken as full proof, but it usually serves as a guide to establishing the rest of the facts, which could actually serve as hard and full proof. Therefore, circumstantial evidence works on deduction. It is precisely due to these reasons that circumstantial evidence is also called indirect evidence. 11. Most criminals obviously try their best to leave no direct and incriminating evidence, therefore the prosecution often depends on circumstantial evidence to prove their side or to prove that the criminal did the act knowingly and intentionally. Only if there is a chain between the facts which are being proven by the circumstantial evidence and the other main facts of the dispute, then the guilt of the accused would be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 12. For the foregoing reasons the present application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.