ORDER : 1. By this successive application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking release on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11210002220107 of 2022 registered with Sachin GIDC Police Station, District : Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 336, 337, 338, 277, 278, 120 (B), 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act. 2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala for learned advocate Mr. Suraj A. Shukla for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent – State. 3. As per the FIR, on account of illegal discharge of hazardous chemical which was not discharged as per the protocol, six persons had died at Surat and in this illegal discharge of chemical, the present applicant is one of the accused person and hence, the present applicant was arrested on 07.01.2022. As per the charge- sheet, the role attributed to the present applicant is that the present applicant was instrumentally transferring the chemical from one tanker to another tanker. He was found in CCTV while transferring the chemical from one tanker to another tanker near Decent Hotel at Ankaleshwar and there were frequent phone calls between the driver of the tanker who discharged the chemical in such a way that six persons had lost their lives and he was also in touch with one Mr. Vishal Yadav who is alleged to be working with the present applicant in the business of discharge of illegal hazardous chemical without following the protocol prescribed under the law. 4. The Earlier bail application after charge-sheet preferred under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail by the present applicant being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12802 of 2022 was withdrawn vide order dated 20.01.2023 by the applicant and following order was passed:- “1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 12802 of 2022 and learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya with learned advocate Mr. A. M. Saiyed for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14049 of 2022. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda with learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 12802 of 2022 and learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya with learned advocate Mr. A. M. Saiyed for the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14049 of 2022. 2. After arguing the matters, learned advocates appearing for the respective applicants seek permission to withdraw the applications, but that concern is the fact that there are large number of witnesses and therefore, interest of justice would be served if the trial is directed to be expedited preferably within a period of 9 months. 3. Learned advocates appearing for the respective applicants also state that in case, if the trial does not get over within a period of 9 months, in that case, liberty may be reserved in their favour to apply once again for bail before this Court. 4. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. All the applications stand disposed of as withdrawn. 5. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, Trial Court may try to complete the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 9 months. 6. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.” 5. The above order would indicate that a liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant that if the trial does not get over within a period of nine months, the applicant was granted liberty to apply for a bail once again. Though more than two years have been over since the above withdrawal as the trial has not even been commenced, this successive bail application is preferred by the applicant. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla appearing for the applicant made following submissions:- 6.1. That the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2022 and the trial has not yet commenced, considering the number of witnesses, the trial is not likely to commence in near future and even if it commences, the same is not likely to get over within some reasonable time and therefore, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail. 6.2. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala that the involvement of the applicant cannot be denied in the offence in question. However, what is required to be seen is to what extent, he has played the role in offence in question. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. 6.2. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala that the involvement of the applicant cannot be denied in the offence in question. However, what is required to be seen is to what extent, he has played the role in offence in question. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala that the present applicant was found transferring the hazardous chemical from one tanker to another tanker and after transfer of chemical in another tanker, the present applicant did not go alongwith the tanker which discharged the hazardous chemical without following due protocols which resulted into death of six persons and therefore, the role of the present applicant is limited to transferring the chemical from one tanker to another tanker. Though the present applicant’s presence is captured in CCTV near Decent Hotel at Ankaleshwar where the chemical was transferred from one tanker to another tanker and there are call records between the present applicant and owner of the tanker as well as driver of the tanker, the same is subject matter of evidence and only on the basis of above piece of evidence, the present applicant cannot be kept in jail for all time to come till the trial is over as the applicant is already in jail since last more than two years. 6.3. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala upon the instructions of the present applicant that the present applicant’s location as per the CDR produced by the Investigating Officer, at the time of incident, is shown at Ankleshwar and therefore, when the present applicant was not traveling alonwith the tanker, it cannot be said that the chemical was discharged in an illegal manner which resulted in death of six persons. Unless by leading evidence, it is proved that the present applicant was instrumentally directing the driver to discharge the chemical at the place at which the driver discharged the chemical, it cannot be said that the present applicant was instrumentally giving directions to the drivers. 6.4. As far as the past antecedents of the present applicant when in respect of two offences related to illegal discharge of chemical is concerned, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala submitted that stringent condition may be imposed upon the present applicant and considering the fact that the tanker used in the offence in question was allegedly being managed by the present applicant and one Mr. Unwala submitted that stringent condition may be imposed upon the present applicant and considering the fact that the tanker used in the offence in question was allegedly being managed by the present applicant and one Mr. Vishal Yadav and as the owner of the vehicle is residing at Vadodara, incident has happened at Surat and the applicant is residing in Ankaleshwar which is in Bharuch District, the applicant may be directed to remain outside the Vadodara, Bharuch and Surat Districts till the trial is over. 6.5. By making the above submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala prayed for grant of bail to the present applicant in respect of offence in question. 7. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing for the respondent – State vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the present applicant was one of the persons who has instrumentally discharged the hazardous chemical without following due protocol and in an illegal manner knowing fully well that the chemical is so dangerous that it is capable of taking human-lives. She submitted that despite knowing that he just out of greed to earn more money, the present applicant was in the business of discharging the hazardous chemical in an illegal manner and therefore, considering the fact that in the past also, he has committed offences of similar nature though have not resulted into death of people, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 7.1. It was pointed out by learned APP Ms. Pathak that call record indicates the present applicant was in constant touch with the co- accused persons including the driver of the vehicle and the present applicant was also captured in CCTV at Decent Hotel near Ankaleshwar whereby he was caught transferring the chemical from one tanker to another tanker. She, therefore, submitted that after having participated actively in the offence in question, the present applicant doesn’t deserve any sympathy and therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 7.2. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak further submitted that the GPS from the truck which was used in discharging the hazardous chemical in illegal manner was removed. She, therefore, submitted that after having participated actively in the offence in question, the present applicant doesn’t deserve any sympathy and therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 7.2. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak further submitted that the GPS from the truck which was used in discharging the hazardous chemical in illegal manner was removed. The said GPS tracker was found from the residence of the present applicant and therefore, in view of above discovery from the residence of the present applicant which establishes his active involvement as well as knowledge, he may not be enlarged on bail as six poor persons who were doing labour works have lost their lives. 7.3. Learned APP Ms. Pathak relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala V/s. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 775 and by relying upon the said judgment, it was submitted by learned APP Ms. Pathak that merely because the trial has not commenced, long incarceration of the accused person is not the ground to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 7.4. Learned APP Ms. Pathak also relied upon the transcript of mobile conversation between Jignesh Tiwari and the present applicant and by relying upon the same, she submitted that the present applicant’s involvement cannot be said to be negligible and he is actively involved in the offence in question. 7.5. Lastly it was submitted by learned APP Ms. Pathak that the charge-sheet papers indicates that the present applicant has played a vital role as right from procuring the tanker till it was discharged in Sachin GIDC in illegal manner without following protocol, the present applicant has played an active role and therefore, there is ample evidence against the present applicant and therefore, coupled with his two antecedents as well as knowledge about the fact that the hazardous chemical was capable of taking human-lives, despite that he ventured into this activity, is sufficient to keep behind the bars and deny the bail. 7.6. By making the above submissions, she prayed for dismissal of this application. 8. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7.6. By making the above submissions, she prayed for dismissal of this application. 8. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. There is no doubt that there is prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the offence in question as he was captured in CCTV footage showing that he was instrumentally transferring the chemical from one tanker to another tanker. However, what is required to be considered is the fact that weather the involvement of the present applicant and evidence against the present applicant is such that he should not be granted bail even till the trial is over and therefore, on consideration of material on record, I have considered the following aspects:- (i) the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2022; (ii) the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed; (iii) At the time when the incident took place as per the CDR produced by the prosecution, the present applicant is found at a far away place that is at his residence at Ankaleshwar whereas the incident has taken place at Surat and therefore, whether the incident had taken place on account of instructions of the present applicant or not is a matter of evidence which can be lead at the stage of trial. (iv) The applicant was not accompanying or piloting the tanker from Ankaleshwar to Surat after the chemical was transferred from one tanker to another tanker and ultimately it was discharged illegally in GIDC at Sachin and resulted into death of six persons and therefore, when the incident took place, the applicant was not found near the tanker carrying hazardous chemical or around the aforesaid tanker as evidence indicates prima facie. (v) As far as two antecedents of the present applicant are concerned, those antecedents are there but in those antecedents as stated by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala, upon instructions, that no persons have lost their lives and therefore, the antecedents part can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. (vi) Whether the present applicant was having knowledge about the deadly effect of this chemical or not is also a matter of evidence. Unwala, upon instructions, that no persons have lost their lives and therefore, the antecedents part can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. (vi) Whether the present applicant was having knowledge about the deadly effect of this chemical or not is also a matter of evidence. (vii) Even after two years, the trial has not even commenced and there are number of witnesses, therefore, the trial is not likely to begun in near future and if it starts then also it would be difficult to ensure that it gets over within some time bound schedule or in near future. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11210002220107 of 2022 registered with Sachin GIDC Police Station, District : Surat on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] furnish latest address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court; [f] mark his presence before the concerned police station in the first week of every month till the trial is over; [g] not to enter into Vadodara, Bharuch and Surat Districts except to mark his presence before the concerned Investigating Officer as well as attending the trial proceedings before the trial court. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.