ORDER : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with I-CR No.3 of 2019 registered with Gandhidham Railway Police Station, Kutch for the offence under Sections 302, 397, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1)(1B)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 145(B) and 155 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is aged 39 years and is in jail since 2019. 2.1 It is submitted that case against the present applicant is based on suspicion and it is a settled law that case based on suspicion cannot take place of proof. It is submitted that mere proximity or acquaintance with the persons who are made accused in itself cannot be the ground for implicating the applicant in such a serious offence. 2.2 It is submitted that the applicant was arraigned as accused in the FIR based on suspicion and now even after filing of the charge sheet, no legally admissible evidence connects the present applicant with the alleged crime. 2.3 It is submitted that the applicant is made a scapegoat due to political rivalry between deceased and accused Manisha, Chabbil Patel and Jayanti Thakkar, who had grudge against the deceased and hold the deceased responsible for their political downfall. 2.4 It is submitted that this Court by order dated 07.01.2023 was pleased to issue direction to the trial Court to conclude trial within one year, preferably by fixing day to day hearing. Even then also, the trial has not concluded and there is complete non-cooperation on the part of prosecution to proceed with the trial. On the contrary, all efforts are being made on the side of prosecution to prolong the trial. It is submitted that the Apex Court by order dated 18.05.2023 in case of co-accused Manishaben in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.6245 of 2023 has also directed to conclude trial within a period of six months. Still, directions of the Supreme Court are not complied with. It is submitted that the Apex Court by order dated 18.05.2023 in case of co-accused Manishaben in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.6245 of 2023 has also directed to conclude trial within a period of six months. Still, directions of the Supreme Court are not complied with. 2.5 It is submitted that co-accused Nikhil Thorat has been enlarged on regular bail by the Apex Court by order dated 29.01.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.15437 of 2023 as be was in jail for more than 4 years, as the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the fact that more than 60 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that co-accused Manisha is also enlarged on regular bail by the Apex Court by order dated 29.07.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7391 of 2024 and thereafter, yet another co-accused Chabilbhai Patel was released on regular bail by this Court by order dated 02.08.2024 in Criminal Misc.Application No.5162 of 2024 and therefore, on the ground of parity, case of the present applicant deserves consideration. 3. As against this, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that this Court in the matter of another accused, viz. Jayantilal Thakkar, who also is a co-conspirator, having similar evidence against him as the present applicant, denied bail to him with a reasoned order and the said accused had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3144 of 2021 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court had dismissed the said SLP by order dated 27.04.2021, not interfering with the impugned order of this Court. 3.1 It is submitted that the applicant was in the thick of conspiracy and there are enough circumstances to indicate his involvement in such conspiracy. The applicant has been named from the initial stage, i.e. registration of the FIR and there are evidenced recorded of the witnesses. It is submitted that in the form of evidence about proximity with Manisha Goswami and co-accused Jayantilal Thakkar, there are evidences to indicate the applicant having visited jail where Manisha Goswami was lodged along with accused Chabil Patel and Jayantilal Thakkar. It is submitted that in the form of evidence about proximity with Manisha Goswami and co-accused Jayantilal Thakkar, there are evidences to indicate the applicant having visited jail where Manisha Goswami was lodged along with accused Chabil Patel and Jayantilal Thakkar. There is also evidence of the applicant being part of the group which had met at Mumbai in the office owned by the co-accused and panchnama of CCTV footage would indicate presence of the applicant in that meeting. The meeting was of priximate period and would make out incident as planned. 3.2 It is submitted that the case of the applicant cannot be considered on the ground of parity as the orders which are passed granting bail to the co-accused persons, the role of those co-accused persons was quite different than that of the present applicant. 3.3 It is submitted that the prosecution also relies upon the photographs which are available on record, which show the applicant in presence of not only main accused Chabildas Patel but also sharp shooters. This in itself is an evidence sufficient to implicate the applicant. 3.4 It is also submitted that statements of witnesses, viz. Ajitnath Kamble and Sachin Adagade have been recorded under Section 164 and they are supporting the case of the case of the prosecution in entirety. 3.5 It is submitted that the role of the applicant can also be ascertained on the basis of CDR, which would indicate that the applicant was in contact on mobile phone with the co-accused persons. 4. Learned Advocate Mr.Jasani for the original complainant, while adopting the arguments made by learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the applicant is nothing short of a gangster, who perennially indulged into the offence like extortion money, etc. It is submitted that there are several witnesses who have stated in their statements that the applicant was found continuously in company of the co-accused. It is submitted that there is also an evidence to suggest the role of the applicant in locating root for escaping after commission of offence. He was seen with co-accused Manisha Goswami in Bhuj from 3rd January to 5th January, which is evident from statements of witnesses as well as statement of one taxi driver. 4.1 It is submitted that the applicant has association with famous gangs which are operating in Mumbai and Pune. He was seen with co-accused Manisha Goswami in Bhuj from 3rd January to 5th January, which is evident from statements of witnesses as well as statement of one taxi driver. 4.1 It is submitted that the applicant has association with famous gangs which are operating in Mumbai and Pune. 4.2 It is lastly submitted that considering the fact that co-accused is a political person, as directed by the Supreme Court, to conduct appeals of political persons, especially MPs and MLAs on daily basis, the trial of the applicant will not be delayed any further. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the offence is clearly political murder, where the motive attributed by the prosecution is that the deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali was a leader of Kachchh District BJP in the year 1988. Accused Jayantibhai Thakkar was active in the politics of Kachchh District in Congress Party since 1995, who left the Congress party and joined BJP in the year 1998. Hence the relations between deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali and Jayantibhai Thakkar were good as both of them were doing political work in the same District and Taluka. Accused Jayantibhai Thakkar gained trust of deceased Jayantibhai Bhaunshali due to the service which he rendered during the earthquake which affected Kachchh in the year 2001. In the year 2007, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar and deceased Jayantibhai Bhaunushali have demanded for the ticket in the election of Lagislative Assembly. As the ticket was issued to deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali, accused Jayantibhai Thakkar propagated for Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Jayantibhai Bhanushali won that election. Due to victory on the seat of Legislative Assembly of Abdasa-Kachchh constituency, the relations between both of them became more homely and strong. In the Legislative Assembly Election in the year 2012, deceased Jayanti Bhanushali lost election against accused Chabildas Patel, who was from the Congress party, but in the year 2014, accused Chabildas Patel resigned from Congress party and joined BJP and in the by-election of the year 2014, as accused Chabildas Patel got the ticket from BJP, Jayantibhai Thakker had worked for accused Chabildas Patel. Chhabilbhai Patel lost in this election, hence Jayantibhai Thakkar reported the Party in his letter pad on 10.06.2014 that deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done activity against the party. Due to that reason, Jayantibhai Bhaunshali was displeased with Jayantibhai Thakkar. Chhabilbhai Patel lost in this election, hence Jayantibhai Thakkar reported the Party in his letter pad on 10.06.2014 that deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done activity against the party. Due to that reason, Jayantibhai Bhaunshali was displeased with Jayantibhai Thakkar. In the year 2017, Jayantibhai Bhaushali demanded ticket, but Chhabildas Patel was given ticket. This time also, Jayantibhai Thakkar worked for Chhabildas Patel. But Chabildas Patel lost once again. Chabildas Patel thought that he got defeated because deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali has done the activities against the party. Chabildas Patel thought that his political career has been destroyed by Jayantibhai Bhaunshali, hence he had made-up his mind to end the political carrier of Jayantibhai Bhanushali and was waiting for an opportunity in which there was the consent of Jayantibhai Thakkar also. 6. As per the prosecution, the case against the applicant is that Jayantibhai Thakkar, residing at- Bhuj who was the friend of Chhabilbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Bhaunushali, was not in favor of this compromise. According to him, if this compromise would take place than he could not get the chance to politically defame Jayantibhai Bhanushali. Hence due to this reason he did not let this compromise take place. Jayantibhai Thakkar, as a friend of Jayantibhai Bhanushali persuaded that Manisha Goswami will not create further trouble if she remains in a jail and considering it, Jayantibhai Bhanushali filed other complaints also against Manisha Goswami. Manisha Goswami was arrested for the offence being ICR. No.97 of 2018 registered at Naroda Police Station under Sections 328, 384 etc. of the Indian Penal Code on 14.06.2018. Manisha Goswami was in Judicial Custody in Sabarmati Jail from 14.06.2018 to 03.08.2018. When Manisha Goswami was in jail, Chabildas Patel and Sujit Pardeshi alias Bhau, the other friend of Manisha Goswami and resident of Keshavnagar, Mundhva, Pune, Maharashtra went to meet Manisha Goswami in jail and assured Manisha Goswami of complete help. Chhabil Patel, Sujit Pardeshi @ Bhau and Jayantibhai Thakkar made attempts to take out Manisha from the cases which were filed against her by Jayantibhai Bhanushali. As per their guidelines, a lady namely Nidhi Barvaliya filed a complaint of illegal acts against Jayantibhai Bhanushali in Sarthana Police Station-Surat City, on 10.07.2018. Deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali came under pressure due to this application filed in Sarthana Police Station, Surat. Chhabildas Patel, Jayantibhai Thakkar and others made great efforts to defame Jayantibhai Bhanushali in news media. As per their guidelines, a lady namely Nidhi Barvaliya filed a complaint of illegal acts against Jayantibhai Bhanushali in Sarthana Police Station-Surat City, on 10.07.2018. Deceased Jayantibhai Bhanushali came under pressure due to this application filed in Sarthana Police Station, Surat. Chhabildas Patel, Jayantibhai Thakkar and others made great efforts to defame Jayantibhai Bhanushali in news media. Jayantibhai Bhanushali again initiated attempts for settlement. Leaders of Bhanushali community Manji Bhanushali, Bhimji Vador and Chhabil Patel, Sujit Bhau and Jayanti Thakkar for Manisha Goswami participated in the settlement. According to which, Chhabil Patel raised the demand that all the cases against Manisha Goswami should be withdrawn and Jayanti Bhanushali should leave the politics and the same was supported by Jayanti Thakkar also. But Jayantibhai Bhaunshali did not accept it. Hence, finally on the basis of application of Surat, the complaint was lodged against Jayanti Bhanushali vide I-CR no. 247 of 2018 at Sarthana Police Station under Sections 376(2) N, 294(KH), 506(2), 420, 342, 465, 471, 354, 354(A), 354(B) and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. At this point of time, deceased Jayanti Bhanushali was caught in embarrassing situation and hence, he struck compromise. Due to this, Jayantibhai Bhanushali relieved from the above case on 07-08-2018 and Manisha Goswami was also released from the Jail on 03-08-2018. Chhabil Patel and Jayanti Thakkar were still not in the favour of this compromise until Jayanti Bhanushali leaves the politics. 7. It is found during investigation that present applicant - accused Sujit Pardesi @ Bhau had been remaining present for the accused Manisha Goswami in the meetings over the disputes regarding money transactions between the accused Manisha Goswami and deceased Jayanti Bhanushali in April-2018. Manisha Goswami was in the Sabarmati Jain in the year - 2018 for the offence of blackmailing / ransom with the complainant. To get accused Manisha Goswami released from the jail, the present accused in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabilbhai Patel and accused Jayanti Thakkar, identified himself in the Sabarmati Jail as the husband of accused Manisha Goswami and planned a conspiracy to register the complaint of rape against Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali at other place. To get accused Manisha Goswami released from the jail, the present accused in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabilbhai Patel and accused Jayanti Thakkar, identified himself in the Sabarmati Jail as the husband of accused Manisha Goswami and planned a conspiracy to register the complaint of rape against Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali at other place. The present accused, in collusion with main accused of this offence Chhabil Patel and Manisha Goswami, with an intention to finish the political career of Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali and to defame him in the society and to compel him to make settlement with accused Manisha Goswami, lodged complaint of rape against late Jayantibhai Bhanushali in Surat Sarthana Police Station. It is found during investigation that the present applicant - accused has made utmost efforts to get accused Manisha released from Jail by coercing the complainant to make settlement. The FIR of rape has been filed against the main accused of this offence - Chhabilbhai Patel in the Delhi Dwarka North Police Station on 16.10.2018. Assuming the role of Jayantibhai Bhanushali against the said FIR, main accused of this offence - Chhabil Patel, Manisha Goswami, Jayanti Thakkar and the present applicant accused decided to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali and planned to hatch the conspiracy of this offence between 20.10.2018 and 30.10.2018. It was decided to kill late Jayantibhai Bhanushali through hired shooters and accordingly, the said accused Manisha Goswami assigned the said work to find hired outsider shooter to the present accused Sujit Pardeshi. Present accused had handed over the said work to his known and subordinate shooter Vishal Kamble and for the same, the present applicant accused called Nikhil Thorat and Vishal Kamble at Bhuj. Accordingly, the accused Manisha Gajjugiri Goswami, Nikhil Thorat and Vishal Nagnath Kamble came to Bhuj together from Vapi on 23/10/2018 in Kutch Express Train No.22955, where meeting was held between all of them. Thus, strong evidences are found implicating the applicant accused in this offence since beginning of the conspiracy of murder. In connection with the murder of Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the present applicant accused had held the meeting on 12/11/2018 of his subordinate shooters Shashikant Kamble, Ashraf Anvar Shiakh, Vishal Nagnath Kamble and Nikhil Thorat with main accused Chhabilbhai Patel at Akvira Devi Temple on Pune - Lonavala Road. In connection with the murder of Late Jayantibhai Bhanushali, the present applicant accused had held the meeting on 12/11/2018 of his subordinate shooters Shashikant Kamble, Ashraf Anvar Shiakh, Vishal Nagnath Kamble and Nikhil Thorat with main accused Chhabilbhai Patel at Akvira Devi Temple on Pune - Lonavala Road. It was decided in the said meeting that it is not proper to kill Jayantibhai Bhanushali at Bhuj and the main accused Chhabil Patel has good business connection at Raanchi, Jharkhand and therefore, it was planned to kill him by calling him at Raanchi through trap and it was decided to go at Raanchi, Jharkhand and to do necessary recce for the same. Photographs of the meeting and technical evidences are found during the investigation. Statements under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Aajinath Kamble and Sachin Adaagade were recorded for the same. 8. This Court, while rejecting Criminal Misc.Application No.16819 of 2020 by order dated 01.10.2021, has considered in detail the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant and had rejected the said application by detailed order. 9. It appears that the present applicant–accused is the main gang-leader of the shooters’ gang based at Yaravda, Pune. The records of Yaravada Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra speak about his history of serious crimes as well as the crimes of his subordinate shooters – accused persons. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence with the prosecution to implicate the applicant in the offence and the role of the applicant in conspiring and identifying the modus in which crime to be committed is also evident. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 11. In the earlier round of bail application, this Court had passed order dated 01.10.2021, where, in detail, the role of the present applicant was examined and recorded while rejecting his bail application. This order was challenged before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.9436 of 2021, which also was rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 13.12.2021 and therefore, findings given by this Court under order dated 01.10.2021 stood confirmed by the Apex Court. 12. This order was challenged before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.9436 of 2021, which also was rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 13.12.2021 and therefore, findings given by this Court under order dated 01.10.2021 stood confirmed by the Apex Court. 12. So far as ground of parity is concerned, the Court finds that co-accused Jayantilal Thakkar is released on bail on the ground of medical ailment, co-accused Manisha is a lady accused, roles of co-accused Nikhil Thorat and Chabbil Patel are quite different than that of the present applicant. The present applicant has played vital role in commission of the offence. 13. The Court has perused the judgment of the Sessions Court, wherein the Sessions Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while rejecting the application of the applicant. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.