JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. 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-11211005220002 of 2022 registered with the Patdi Police Station, Surendranagar of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 3. Facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present application are as under; 3.1 On 03.01.2022, a complaint came to be lodged by one Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Zapda for the incident alleged to have been taken place on the very same day. The complaint states that the dispute arose when the cousin of the complainant, namely, Satishbhai Sendhabhai Bharwad started complaining to the accused persons for the illegal encroachment made by them on the road. Therefore, keeping grudge of the same, all the accused persons, with the common intention to kill the deceased, formed an unlawful assembly and laid an assault upon the cousin of the complainant. 3.2 On the fateful day, when the complainant was at his home, at around 9:00 O’clock in the morning, the daughter of the complainant rushed to him and told that a quarrel was going on at the outside. Therefore, the complainant immediately ran outside where he saw that near the house of one Rameshbhai Jayantibhai, accused Shaileshbhai Naranbhai having scythe in his hand, accused Shaktabhai Naranbhai also having scythe in his hand, accused Naranbhai Ramabhai having Axe in his hand and accused Virambhai Lalabhai Bharwad having stick in his hand, were assaulting his cousin Satishbhai. The other two accused, namely, Ratanben Naranbhai and Lalabhai Bharwad caught hold the deceased. 3.3 It is alleged that accused Shaileshbhai Naranbhai and Shaktabhai Ramanbhai inflicted scythe blows on the head of the deceased. It is also alleged that all the accused persons were beating the deceased with the respective weapons in their hands. Therefore, the complainant immediately ran towards the deceased to save him whereupon all the accused persons fled away along with the weapons. At that time, Lakhabhai Zinabhai Bharwad and Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bharwad also reached there and the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital at Patdi. The deceased was unconscious at that point of time. Therefore, the complainant immediately ran towards the deceased to save him whereupon all the accused persons fled away along with the weapons. At that time, Lakhabhai Zinabhai Bharwad and Kanubhai Gokalbhai Bharwad also reached there and the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital at Patdi. The deceased was unconscious at that point of time. After giving primary treatment at Patdi Hospital, the doctor advised to take the deceased to Viramgam for further treatment. Therefore, they immediately reached to the Shiv Hospital at Viramgam where after giving some treatment, the doctor advised to take the deceased to Sola Hospital at Ahmedabad. Therefore, they took the deceased to Sola Hospital at Ahmedabad where the doctor declared him as dead. Therefore, the present FIR came to be lodged. 4. The applicant-accused approached the District & Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra at the post charge-sheet stage by filing an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.280 of 2022 which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra vide its judgment and order dated 17.08.2022. Hence, the present application. 5. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 07.01.2022 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the first information report has been filed against in all total six accused persons, out of which, accused Nos.5 and 6 have already been released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court whereas the accused No.3 has been released on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has also submitted that the role of the present applicant-accused is more or less similar to that of co-accused Naranbhai who has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant-accused is entitled to be released on bail. 6. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. 7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Mangukiya prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. 7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that the roles of accused Nos.5 and 6 are altogether different and distinct than the role of the applicant-accused. The present applicant-accused is the key accused who has inflicted blows with the deadly weapon on the vital parts of the body of the deceased which is corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of postmortem report wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on the vital parts of his body due to which later the deceased succumbed. Learned APP has further submitted that so far as accused Naranbhai is concerned, his bail application has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court solely on the ground of sympathy by clearly observing that at least one male member of the family should be set at liberty and the applicant-accused being the senior citizen and also to look after the agricultural activities and occupation of animal husbandry which appears to be the source of livelihood for the family. Learned APP has also submitted that it is stated in the operative part of the order that heinous offence was committed by the accused persons whereby a young persons was brutally beaten with the deadly weapons who later succumbed to the injuries. The present applicant-accused is the son of accused No.3 whose active involvement and participation in the commission of the offence is foun out from the police papers. 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. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant–accused and the respondent No.1–State as also have carefully examined the record. 9. This Court is called upon to decide as to whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant- accused conferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in the given facts of the case. 10. It cannot be gainsaid that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is wide ranging. 9. This Court is called upon to decide as to whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant- accused conferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in the given facts of the case. 10. 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, (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. 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. (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.” 11. I hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC, as the case may be. 12. I am of the view that in the case on hand, several important factors ought to have been kept in mind while considering the prayer of the applicant-accused for his enlargement on regular bail. The murder of the cousin of the complainant took place in broad day light. The occurrence has been witnessed by the complainant and other independent witnesses. It was apparently a case of some dispute regarding raising objections by the deceased to the illegal encroachment made by the accused persons. There is material to indicate the motive behind the commission of gruesome murder of the cousin of the complainant. 13. The other important factor is that all the significant witnesses are yet to be examined as the trial has yet to be commenced. Though not as a general rule but it is expedient and is always in the interest of criminal justice system that the prayer for bail is considered after ensuring that the statements of the vital witnesses stand recorded and there is no likelihood of influencing or tampering their evidence. This Court has also taken note of the fact that it is clearly stated by the complainant in the complaint that the applicant-accused was very much present at the time of the incident and had given scythe blow on the head of the deceased. This Court has also taken note of the fact that it is clearly stated by the complainant in the complaint that the applicant-accused was very much present at the time of the incident and had given scythe blow on the head of the deceased. The said unfortunate incident was witnessed by the complainant which the complainant has very specifically narrated in the FIR. All the accused persons together inflicted various fatal blows on the body of the complainant which is also corroborative from the medical evidence available on record viz. the postmortem report wherein it is opined that the deceased succumbed to the multiple fatal injuries sustained by him. The offence as alleged against the applicant-accused is a heinous offence taking the life of an innocent person over a very trivial issue. Here, the incident took place in the broad day light and more than half a dozen miscreants assaulted a single man with sharp-edged weapons over his objections against the illegal encroachment made by them resulting in the death of one innocent person. It is apparently a case of brutal murder. There is material to indicate the motive behind the commission of gruesome murder of Satish, i.e, the cousin of the complainant. 14. Now I would like to refer to and rely upon, with profit, some of the precedents enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be kept in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail. 15. The Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244 held that the individual role of the accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have been part of sharing of common intention. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that in the presence of the complainant all the accused persons randomly inflicted blows with deadly weapons to the deceased and committed the murder and, therefore, under such circumstances, individual role of each of the accused cannot be considered at the time of considering the bail application in an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and more particularly, when they are party for the offence with Section 149 of IPC. 16. 16. With regard to the parity is concerned, the counsel for the applicant has submitted that that accused Nos.5, 6 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail and hence, the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The Apex Court in the judgment of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD vs. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 while considering the bail on the ground of parity of co-accused held that while applying the principles of parity, the Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider totality of circumstances before granting bail, parity while granting bail must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon carried by accused, merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on the basis of parity in deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance and also held that whether order granting bail can be relied on as a precedent in a matter for future adjudication if and when application for bail is moved on the ground of parity on behalf of another accused. In the event that parity is claimed in such case thereafter, it is for that Court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether case for grant of bail on the grounds of parity is made out. In the case on hand, it is very specific that this applicant is found to be very much available at the place of occurrence while committing the offence. The applicant-accused had a scythe in his hand and inflicted blows on the head of the deceased as witnessed by the complainant itself. The role attributed to the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail is of only catching hold of the deceased and not of inflicting any deadly blow to the deceased. The other co-accused has also been enlarge on bail on humanitarian ground as well as for the purpose of earning some livelihoods for the family as all the male members of the family are in jail. Therefore, the role of the applicant-accused is quite distinct and different than the role of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. 17. The other co-accused has also been enlarge on bail on humanitarian ground as well as for the purpose of earning some livelihoods for the family as all the male members of the family are in jail. Therefore, the role of the applicant-accused is quite distinct and different than the role of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. 17. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002) 3 SCC 598, it has been clearly laid down that the grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of rejection of bail though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. In the said case, reference was made to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 and thereafter the court proceeded to state the following principles:- “(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.” 18. It is a well settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 ] 19. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 while dealing with the court’s role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Supreme Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:- “9. … among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 20. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant-accused. Consequently, the present application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.