ORDER : 1. Both these applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11204065230073/2023 registered with the Vaso Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 20.04.2023 to 21.04.2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 21.04.2023 and the applicants have been arrested in connection with the same on 22.04.2023 and since then, they are in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence and nobody has witnessed the incident. Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the discovery panchnama of the weapon used in the commission of crime drawn under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was by the concerned IO and at that relevant point of time, certain revealing facts have been disclosed by the co-accused. Learned advocate submitted that entire sequence of events of incident narrated by the co-accused before the IO at the time of drawing discovery panchnama clearly goes on to show that the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 had mutilated the head of the deceased and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 had killed the deceased. Learned advocate submitted that if the Hon’ble Court would make a cursorily glance upon the contents of the said panchnama, it is clearly stated that the murder was committed by the main accused and the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 and at that relevant point of time, the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5025/2024 was not found available at the place of occurrence and after commission of crime, he had supported the main accused in mutilating the head of the deceased, therefore at the most, it can be said that the role of the present applicant is falling under the definition of Section 201 of the IPC, which provides ‘Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender’ and maximum punishment, which can be imposed, is upto seven years. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the involvement of the applicants are found out on the strength of the statement of the co-accused while drawing panchnama while he was in judicial custody and, hence, the said statement cannot be said to be admissible in law and it can be said to be a weak piece of evidence and cannot be taken into consideration at the time of leading evidence and also cannot be considered in case of co- accused. Learned advocate submitted that other co- accused have been considered by this Court. 3. Learned advocate submitted that so far as the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.5283/2024 is concerned, there is no specific role attributed to the said applicant – accused. Learned advocate submitted that there is no recovery or discovery pending at the instance of the present applicant – accused. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the present applicants and on the ground of parity, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP submitted that initially FIR is field against unknown persons but subsequently during the course of investigation, the name and specific role of the accused persons have been revealed and on the strength of the said material collected by the IO, the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons. Learned advocate submitted that from the very beginning, charge of Section 120(B) of the IPC was found available in the FIR and on the strength of the said section, the involvement of the present applicants is clearly found out. Learned APP submitted that the present applicants are one of the conspirators and in connivance with other co-accused persons, they have hatched criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Learned APP submitted that the present applicants are one of the conspirators and in connivance with other co-accused persons, they have hatched criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Learned APP submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased was having illegal relationship with the wife of one of the co-accused, who happens to be the friend of the accused, due to which, the main accused has tried to apprise him to cut-off the said relationship but despite the said fact, the deceased continued with the said relationship, therefore with a sole intent to apprise him once again, the deceased was called at the place of occurrence by the accused and at that time, the accused reached the place of offence in drunken condition and in that inebriated condition, they made attack upon the deceased and killed him mercilessly. Learned APP submitted that during the course of investigation, on the strength of the material collected by the IO, it can safely be said that there was motive on the part of the accused persons, due to which, they have hatched criminal conspiracy and as a part of it, they have acted in a particular fashion and reached the place of offence armed with deadly weapons, where they made attacked upon the deceased, therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the involvement of the present applicants is not found out in the commission of crime. Learned APP submitted that during the course of investigation, it is found out that the clothes worn by the applicants were found with blood stain, which matches with the blood of the deceased. Learned APP submitted that in the present case, act of the present applicants is also required to be seen because after the commission of crime, they have mutilated the head of the deceased and took it in the city to show the accused no.5 that they have fulfilled their pledge and thus apparently on the face of record, it is found out that gruesome and barbaric murder of innocent person has been committed by all the accused in connivance with each other. Learned APP, therefore, urged that considering the above facts of the case, no leniency may be shown and the present applications may be rejected. 5. Learned APP, therefore, urged that considering the above facts of the case, no leniency may be shown and the present applications may be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. I have also considered the reasoning given by the concerned court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application. 6. It is the settled position of the law that, at this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not necessary and should be avoided. 7. It is found out from the record that the applicants are involved in a serious offence of murder of innocent person, who was called by the accused at the place of occurrence, where the accused were present armed with deadly weapons with an intent to eliminate the deceased. It is an admitted position of fact that the case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence, however to connect the accused with the commission of crime, the prosecution has proved the link between the accused and the crime. It is found out from the record that at the time of drawing panchnama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the original accused no.1 has narrated entire sequence of events of incident as to how they have hatched criminal conspiracy and as to how they have eliminated the deceased and the version given by the accused no.1 has been specifically recorded in the said panchnama and on the strength of the said panchnama, the involvement of the applicants is found out. Further from the material available on record, modus operandi adopted by the accused is also found out including the fact of hatching criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Even the prosecution has also proved motive behind the commission of crime because there was illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of one of the accused and because of said relationship, the deceased was eliminated. During the course of investigation, the concerned IO has collected cloth of the accused persons, on which blood stain of the deceased was found. During the course of investigation, the concerned IO has collected cloth of the accused persons, on which blood stain of the deceased was found. Over and above that, one of the eyewitness has also seen the accused while burying the head of the deceased near the house of one of the accused. Thus, there are ample material available on record connecting the accused with the commission of crime and prove the link between the crime and the accused. 8. The submission made by learned advocate for the applicants that other co-accused have already been considered by this Court and, hence on the ground of parity, the applicants may also be considered for bail. However at this stage, it is required to be noted that all the accused are charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC and, hence at this stage, the individual role of the accused is not required to be considered because in the present case, after eliminating the deceased, the accused have mutilated the head of the deceased and taken to the city as per the statement made by them and in that act, all accused were there, which suggests their active participation in the commission of crime. It is required to be noted that the act and conduct of the accused is required to be taken into consideration because as stated above, after killing the deceased mercilessly, they have mutilated the head of the deceased and taken it to show others just to fulfill their promise and thereby created an atmosphere of terror. Therefore considering the facts of the case and the manner in which the gruesome murder has been done, no leniency is required to be shown upon the accused. 9. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. Therefore considering the facts of the case and the manner in which the gruesome murder has been done, no leniency is required to be shown upon the accused. 9. At this stage, I would like to put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI Through its Director, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 , wherein, the Apex Court has laid down that, while considering an application for regular bail, the Courts shall have to take into consideration, the following aspects, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge; 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court, further, observed at Paragraphs-10 and 16 thus; “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. 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a decision in case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 has made observation as under, "9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a decision in case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 has made observation as under, "9. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors 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." 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a decision in case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118 , it has been held that:- "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." 13. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that as per the prosecution case, the applicants are involved in the serious offence and taking into consideration the complicity of the applicants, there being apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, severity of punishment as drawn from the nature and gravity of the accusations, after taking due consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the settled case law in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. 14. Accordingly, the present applications are rejected. Notice is discharged. 15. 14. Accordingly, the present applications are rejected. Notice is discharged. 15. Needless to say that observations made herein above are confined to decision of the present bail application.