ORDER : Ilesh J. Vora, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.S. Timbalia, learned counsel for the applicant – Jayendrasinh @ Jaydipsinh Gohil and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 2. This is the fourth successive bail application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The relevant details are as under: (1) Date of Incident 17.09.2021 at 22-30 hrs. (2) Date of registration of FIR 18.09.2021 registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7 Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b) (a) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. (3) Date of Arrest 23.09.2021. (4) Date of chargesheet 04.12.2021 (Sessions Case No. 116 of 2021) (5) Date of charge frame 17.09.2022. (6) Date of commencement of trial 17.12.2022. 4. Factual details relevant to dispose of this successive bail application are summarized as under: (i) As per the prosecution case, the incident in question took place on 17.09.2021. The deceased Pravin Maniya was owner of Samrajya Farm, situated under the jurisdiction of Gandhinagar district. The deceased and the accused applicant Jayendrasinh and accused no.2 Tarunsinh Zala and others like Janakbhai Vichhiya, Harpalsinh Sarvaiya, Jayrajsinh Rana and Santosh Bharwad, were assembled at the farm of the deceased for party. During the discussion on the issue of who will give best party at Mumbai, the accused nos. 1 and 2 along with deceased Pravinbhai had got into heated arguments. In the course of said arguments, at the instance of Tarunsinh Zala, the applicant accused Jayendrasinh Gohil took out his licensed revolver and fired at the deceased. It is further alleged that, the accused Tarunsinh Zala had also inflicted sword injury upon the deceased. Both the accused fled away from the spot and later on, they again came at the spot. At that time, the witnesses, who were gathered, more particularly witness Bharwad Santoshbhai scolded both the accused and in process of detaining him, the accused run away from the spot and while running away, the witness Bharwad Santoshbhai tried to stop the Mercedes car, which was used by the accused, however, they did not stop their car and in that process, the witness Bharwad Santosh sustained injuries. The deceased Pravin Maniya was taken to nearly private hospital, where he was declared dead. The deceased Pravin Maniya was taken to nearly private hospital, where he was declared dead. The son of the deceased Vijay Maniya, PW-4, immediately lodged an FIR with the Gandhinagar Police Station and accordingly, the investigation being entrusted to the Gandhinagar Police. (ii) During the investigation, the I.O. has collected the C.C. TV footage, wherein, the entire incident was recorded. He drew the panchnama of incident and seized the material from the place. The I.O. requested the Executive Magistrate to hold the T.I. Parade, wherein the witness like Geeta Devi Raval and others have identified the accused. The I.O. has seized the license of the accused applicant, allegedly issued by the District Magistrate to possess and use the fire arms and also collected the liquor permit issued in favour of the applicant accused. The statement of Janak Vichhiya was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. The Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against the accused for commission of offence of murder and accordingly, on 04.12.2021, chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant and co-accused Tarunsinh Zala. The case has been culminated into Sessions Case No. 116 of 2021. The Sessions Court, Gandhinagar has framed the charge for the aforesaid offences on 17.09.2022. The accused herein hired lawyer for defence and on 17.12.2022, the vakalatnama of one Mr. C.K. Shah, was filed. On the same day, the panch witness PW- 1, was examined. (iii) During the trial proceedings, the applicant herein sought temporary bail from the Sessions Court and while rejecting his application for extension, he sought temporary bail from the High Court. He succeeded in getting the temporary bail from the High Court and on 01.07.2023, he jumped the bail and remained absconded till 21.10.2023. On earlier occasion, his regular bail application, rejected twice by the Sessions Court. He moved an application before this Court and same was withdrawn and thereafter, he again moved an application for bail before this Court and same was withdrawn on 03.07.2023. While withdrawing the said application, the accused invited the order for expeditious trial. This Court directed the Sessions Court to complete the trial proceedings within 3 months. However, the trial Court could not proceed with the matter because, in the interregnum period, the applicant was absconded and based on the report submitted by the Sessions Court, this Court recalled the order of expeditious trial. This Court directed the Sessions Court to complete the trial proceedings within 3 months. However, the trial Court could not proceed with the matter because, in the interregnum period, the applicant was absconded and based on the report submitted by the Sessions Court, this Court recalled the order of expeditious trial. The Sessions Case is pending for examination of further prosecution witnesses. As on 15.05.2024, 8 witnesses including the Medical Officer have been examined. 5. Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant accused submitted that the applicant is in custody since 23.09.2021 and there is slow progress in the trial. Thus, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time. On the case of the merits, he would urge that, there is no sufficient material evidence collected by the police to establish the charge of murder and considering the manner in which the incident took place, the charge of murder against the applicant is not sustainable. Lastly, he would urge that, when investigation is over and trial is proceedings in a snail space, keeping the applicant behind bar for indefinite period, is a violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, considering the change in fact situation about the slow space of the trial proceedings, case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application, has contended that, though the accused have right to make successive bail application for grant of bail and in such cases, it is the boundant duty of the applicant accused to furnish and plead fresh grounds or to show the court a change in fact situation, unless and until, same has not been pleaded or demonstrated that there is a change in fact situation, the successive bail application cannot be entertained. She would further urge that, after the arrest, the applicant was remained on temporary bail for a considerable time, either granted by the Sessions Court or by this Court and lastly, after framing of the charge by the trial Court, the applicant when he was on temporary bail, had absconded for a period of 4 months and was arrested from Jammu and Kashmir. In such circumstances, she would submit that, considering the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in the case of conviction, no case is made out to grant bail. She would urge that, there is sufficient evidence recorded by the trial Court to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. She would further urge that, there is danger of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice, if he is released, which may ultimately affect trial and judicial process. The applicant and co-accused are influential person and also having past antecedents and therefore, there is apprehension of accused influencing the witnesses. So far as, delay in trial proceedings is concerned, she would urge that, the applicant is facing very serious offence of murder and during the trial proceedings, the accused sought adjournment on one or another pretext and remained on temporary bail and thereafter, he absconded. Thus, the prosecution is no way responsible for delay in trail. She further ensured that trial proceedings shall be concluded as far as possible expeditious in a reasonable time and in that view of the matter, considering the conduct of the applicant and in absence of any change in fact situation, no case is made out to exercise judicial discretion in favour of the applicant herein. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the case records, the issue as to whether case is made out to exercise judicial discretion or not? 8. As per the settled legal position, the following parameters are inter-alia, required to be taken into consideration for grant of bail. (i) Whether there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence? (ii) nature and gravity of circumstances in which offence was committed; (iii) position and status of accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; (iv) likelihood of accused fleeing from justice; (v) likelihood of accused tampering with witnesses; (vi) history of the case as well as of its investigation. It is also a settled legal position that the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case at the stage of consideration of Bail Application. 9. The Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , has held as follows :- “4. It is also a settled legal position that the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case at the stage of consideration of Bail Application. 9. The Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , has held as follows :- “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 considerations 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.” (Emphasis added) 10. In the instant case, it is the case of the accused that, since long he is in custody and there is delay in trial proceedings. In cases of delay in trial proceedings, the Supreme Court in its various judgments, held and observed that, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a great importance because, it enshrines the fundamental rights to individual liberty, but at the same time, balance has to struck between the right of the individual liberty and the interest of the society and therefore, no right can be absolute and the reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. In the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI, 2007 Cri. L.J. 304, it was observed in para-10 & 16 as follows: “Para-10. In the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI, 2007 Cri. L.J. 304, it was observed in para-10 & 16 as follows: “Para-10. In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted. Para-16 : We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.” The Apex Court in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) Cri. L.J. 782, in para-16, held as under: “para-16 : .. It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail.” Therefore, long incarceration alone is not consideration for bail. Personal liberty and social justice are the two wheels which must run parallel. 11. In light of the settled position of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it is required to be noted that, no straight jacket formula prescribed for holding that there is long incarceration. The same depends on several factors. Personal liberty and social justice are the two wheels which must run parallel. 11. In light of the settled position of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it is required to be noted that, no straight jacket formula prescribed for holding that there is long incarceration. The same depends on several factors. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant accused himself is responsible for the alleged delay in trial proceedings and prosecution is in no way responsible for delay in trial. The reasons for the conclusion are as follows: (i) It is an admitted fact that, this is a fourth successive bail application filed by the applicant accused before this Court. The first application being Cr.M.A. No. 2171 of 2022 was withdrawn on 11.07.2022. The second bail application being Cr.M.A. 2952 of 2023 was withdrawn on 03.07.2023 and sought direction for expeditious trial. This court while disposing the said application, directed the Sessions Court to conclude the trial proceedings within three months. At the time of issuing direction, the prosecution had already examined 4 witnesses. Meanwhile, the learned trial Court by letter dated 25.08.2023 brought to the notice of this Court about the conduct of the accused as, he jumped the temporary bail, as a result, trial Court could not proceed. On 04.09.2023, this Court directed the I.O to remain present. On 18.09.2023, the order of expeditious trial had been recalled and matter was adjourned to 03.10.2023. On 03.10,2023 and 13.10.2023, the Gandhinagar Police assured this Court that, they will find out the whereabouts of the accused and execute the warrant issued by the Sessions Court. On 25.10.2023, it was reported that, the applicant accused was arrested on 21.10.2023 from Jammu and Kashmir. Thereafter, the accused no. 2 Tarunsinh Zala was absconded and after his arrest, the trial Court proceeded further. (ii) The remarks offered by the Sessions Court concerned and the copy of the case proceedings, would indicative of the facts that before trial court could frame the charge, the applicant accused sought adjournment on one or other pretext and after framing of the charge i.e. 17.09.2022, the accused had not cooperated the trial proceedings and lastly, he was absconded from 01.07.2023 to 21.10.2023. From 21.10.2023 to 30.12.2023, the matter was adjourned for which, the prosecution cannot be made responsible. From 21.10.2023 to 30.12.2023, the matter was adjourned for which, the prosecution cannot be made responsible. Even on 06.01.2024, when witness PW-5 Janak Vichhiya entered into witness box, the applicant accused sought time for further cross-examination. However, trial Court, could able to examine 8 witnesses. The material witnesses, who had seen the offence, are yet to examine. In view of the aforesaid reasons, and considering the seriousness of the offence and evidence led by the prosecution, mere delay in trial proceedings, cannot be considered a ground to grant bail and same is misconceived and contrary to facts and record of the case. 12. The State has strongly objected this application and contended that this fourth successive bail application without any change in fact situation, cannot be entertained. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the earlier bail applications, were withdrawn and as such, on merits, the entitlement of the applicant for bail was never examined. It is settled position of law that, the successive bail application, can be filed as has been held in the catana of judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, but then, it has been observed that there must be a change in circumstances, which warrant fresh consideration of the application. In the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. Duman Singh, AIR 1096 SC 2176, it is observed and held that, when bail application not pressed would be indicative of the fact that the Court was disinclined to grant bail or he did not see sufficient grounds to press the bail. In the facts of the present case, this Court found that, the accused twice withdraw the application before this Court and, while preferring the present application, he failed to show that what would be the change in fact situation for filing this successive bail application, except the plea of delay in trial but as discussed above, in the preceding para of the order, the accused himself was responsible for the delay and prosecution in no way responsible on the aspect of slow space of trial proceedings. The accused herein never raised the contention before the trial Court with regard to delay in trial proceedings. The accused herein never raised the contention before the trial Court with regard to delay in trial proceedings. It is required to be noted that, during the course of investigation to establish the complicity of accused in the alleged offence of murder, the I.O. has recovered and seized the CC TV footage, wherein, the entire incident was recorded. The statement of eye witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (old Act). The applicant accused shot fired on the deceased from his licensed service revolver and same was recovered and seized. The police report would further show that, the license issued for the fire arms was earlier revoked by the authority because of registration of the offence against the applicant and later on, licence was renewed. The eye witness, Janak Vichhiya, PW-5, in his deposition categorically narrated the entire incident. The other material eye-witnesses yet to examine. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the plea of his non-involvement cannot be examined at this stage, as it is to be tried finally by the trial Court. Considering the past conduct of the applicant, this Court is agree with the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, there is likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the witnesses, if he is released on bail. The bail of co-accused Tarunsinh Zala has been cancelled by the Supreme Court. (Cri. Appeal No. 2495 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023). The very fact of order of Supreme Court in case of coaccused Tarunsinh Zala has been suppressed by the applicant herein. 13. For the reasons recorded, this Court is of the considered view that when a prima-facie case made out against the applicant for alleged murder of deceased Pravin Maniya and considering his past conduct and role attributed to him, this Court is not inclined to exercise judicial discretion as no case is made out to grant bail and accordingly, the application stands dismissed and is hereby dismissed.