ORDER : H. P. SANDESH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. This bail petition is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.4. The accused earlier had approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.9687/2021 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2022 and while rejecting the same, this Court has taken note of the fact that prosecution mainly relies upon the CCTV footage with regard to taking the victim in a car by the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also the case of prosecution that, in order to screen the evidence, wallet belonging to the victim was given to petitioner and the petitioner, in turn gave it to accused No.3. The Accused No.3 is the architect in committing the murder, who gave supari to accused persons and the same is recorded in CCTV footage which is collected by the prosecution. Apart from that, the call details of accused No.3, who gave supari discloses that calls are made to this petitioner, but the petitioner was not present at the time of committing the murder. But, all the way from taking him to commit the murder, he was very much present. Thereafter also, the belongings of the deceased was thrown by this petitioner and recovery is also made at his instance and he only pointed out the place where he had thrown the belongings of the deceased. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that not a case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Now, the present petition is filed before this Court contending that all the accused persons have been released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 15 witnesses have already been examined as against 88 witnesses. The counsel would vehemently contend that accused No.3 was granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4522/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 and accused No.2 has also been released in Criminal Petition No.9518/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is a clear violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner is in jail for more than 4 years. 4. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is a clear violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner is in jail for more than 4 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. reported in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution did not establish the motive in committing the alleged crime and conspiracy has been vanished away as far as admissions of P.Ws.5 and 6. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 not corroborates with each other and there are contradictions and improvements. The prosecution cited all hearsay witnesses and their statements cannot be believed. The petitioner was arraigned as accused only based on voluntary statement of accused No.2 and there is no identification parade of dead body and also the opinion of the Doctor with regard to cause of death is still pending. It is also contended that no Identification Parade was conducted to identify the accused persons and entire allegations are made based on the circumstantial evidence and this petitioner has been arraigned as accused only based on suspicion and mere suspicion or strong suspicion against the petitioner cannot take place of legal proof. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that petitioner also may be enlarged on the ground of parity, since the main accused have already been enlarged on bail and one of the accused has committed suicide. The prosecution is not able to secure the FSL report. The counsel also vehemently contend that though P.Ws.13 and 14 have supported the case of the prosecution, they are the inquest witnesses and they categorically depose that inquest was conducted under the PM report. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.7, last seen witness and his evidence also not corroborates the case of the prosecution. 5. The counsel, in support of his argument, apart from relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in VIHAAN KUMAR’s case, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SURAJ VIJAY AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8432/2023 dated 21.08.2023 and brought to notice of this Court that when the co-accused has been granted bail directed to release the accused. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court, paragraph Nos.26, 28, 31 and 32 of the VIHAAN KUMAR’ case. 6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UNION Of INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB reported in AIR 2021 SC 712 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.16, wherein discussion was made regarding with regard to custody of a accused for a longer period and once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 7. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in JAVED GULAB NABI SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.7, wherein discussion was made with regard to exercising of discretion that appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; till this date, the Trial Court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge and so also, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The Trial Courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph Nos.18 and 19, wherein an observation is made that when a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect and also to keep in mind Article 21 of the Constitution of India and petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. 8. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect and also to keep in mind Article 21 of the Constitution of India and petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in TAPAS KUMAR PALIT v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH in Criminal Appeal No.738 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.7 and 8, wherein an observation is made that appellant is in judicial custody for more than 5 years and State has no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of oral evidence and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon these judgments would vehemently contend that even though some of the witnesses have been examined, it may take longer time. Hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. 9. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that this petitioner is a supari killer and this petitioner came along with accused Nos.1 and 2 to Bengaluru and went to the house of deceased and brought him along with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also contented that he has conspired with accused Nos.1 to 3 and conspiracy has taken place at Chennai and came to Bengaluru and accused No.3 was residing along with accused No.4. He would also contend that CCTV records clearly disclose that this petitioner went to the house of deceased and came out of the deceased along with accused Nos.1 and 3. He would vehemently contend that toll records disclose the presence of this petitioner which is collected by the prosecution. He would further contend that the belongings of the deceased were handed over to accused No.3 and the same is evident and though committed the murder, body was taken to Andhra and it was disposed of at Andhra. The material available on record is also clear that this petitioner was in touch with accused No.3 and the phone of deceased was used by accused No.3 to make phone calls to his biological mother to mislead her. The body was exhumed at the instance of accused No.2 and accused No.4 enquired with accused Nos.1 and 3 over phone and they are part of destruction of evidence. The body was exhumed at the instance of accused No.2 and accused No.4 enquired with accused Nos.1 and 3 over phone and they are part of destruction of evidence. He would contend that accused No.3 was released on the ground that she was having two minor children. Hence, question of parity does not arise. He would further contend that witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground to grant bail and there is no changed circumstance and this Court has already considered the matter in detail and rejected the bail petition considering the matter on merits. He would contend that prosecution will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State also brought to notice of this Court the statement of objections filed to oppose this bail petition and particularly relies upon the motive to murder the deceased Siddharth Singh and accused No.3 is a step mother of deceased and with an intention to knock off the property, murder was committed and this petitioner has received the money from accused Nos.1 and 2 and the sister of accused No.2 and also by accused No.3 and her sister i.e., an amount of Rs.25,000/-. As per the voluntary statement of accused No.3, she paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- cash to accused Nos.1 and 2 in Chennai on 15.12.2020 and bank statement is also clear for having transferred the amount. He would vehemently contend that call record details of accused No.3 would reveal the involvement of this petitioner and was having contact with accused No.3. The CCTV records and close circuit camera recordings also goes against the petitioner and these are the factors have been taken note of by this Court while rejecting the earlier bail petition of this petitioner. He would contend that question of parity will not come to the aid of this petitioner, since the principles regarding parity has been highlighted in the case of TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT in SLP (Crl.) 9431/2023 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. 11. 11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in X v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN in SLP (Crl.) No.13378/2024 dated 27.11.2024 , wherein the Apex Court held that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the trial commences, the Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused and applying the same principle to the present case, the petitioner is accused of the serious crime of murder. Hence, contend that petitioner is not entitled for bail. 12. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MAMATHA NAIR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442 , wherein the Apex Court held that in case the FIR and charge-sheet shows prima facie case, it is not proper to extend the liberty of bail and hence applying the same principle to the present case, it is very obvious that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner. 13. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KRISHNAKANT v. STATE OF UP in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.33329/2020 dated 16.12.2022 . He would contend that there is no changed circumstance to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the Apex Court also in catena of judgments, including this judgment has held that witnesses having turned hostile would be a matter of trial and hence, cannot be appreciated in a bail petition. Hence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor referring these judgments would contend that some of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and not in entirety and this Court cannot sit and appreciate the evidence available on record. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the bail petition. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, this Court also in the beginning itself made it clear that this Court rejected the earlier bail petition of this petitioner considering the material on record i.e., CCTV footage that he went to the house of the deceased and came out along with accused Nos.1 and 3. The material collected by the I.O. is also very clear that after boarding the car, they proceeded along with the deceased and the same is also found in the CCTV recording of the toll which is evident. The material collected by the I.O. is also very clear that after boarding the car, they proceeded along with the deceased and the same is also found in the CCTV recording of the toll which is evident. Apart from that, recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner and also taken note of call details and handing over of belongings of the deceased to accused No.3, who is the mastermind and entrusted the work of eliminating the deceased by entrusting supari to accused Nos.1 and 2 and this accused. The prosecution mainly relies upon CCTV camera and the witnesses have not been examined before the Court and CCTV is also not placed before the Court and marked as material object. When the Court has taken note of all the material available on record, question of granting bail does not arise unless there is a changed circumstance. 15. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that some of the witnesses have turned hostile, learned counsel also not disputes the fact that P.Ws.13 and 14 have supported the case of prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is elaborate and elaborate cross-examination was made by the defence. As rightly pointed out by learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, this Court cannot sit and appreciate the material available on record which vests with the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and material available on record. 16. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that doctrine of parity could be invoked. Having perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused No.3 is concerned, accused No.3 herself entrusted supari to eliminate the deceased and she being a lady and having two minor children, the same was taken note of at the time of enlarging the accused No.3 on bail and the same cannot be ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail. So also in the case of accused No.2 is concerned, subsequent to granting bail in favour of accused Nos.3 and the bail petition of accused No.2 was considered. But, in the case on hand, no doubt, this petitioner is in judicial custody from last 4½ years, in VIHAAN KUMAR’s case, the Apex Court has taken note of custody of the accused for a longer period and the offence in that case are 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. But, in the case on hand, no doubt, this petitioner is in judicial custody from last 4½ years, in VIHAAN KUMAR’s case, the Apex Court has taken note of custody of the accused for a longer period and the offence in that case are 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. In the present case on hand, the offences are serious in nature i.e., taking away the liberty of a person. 17. It is also important to note that the Apex Court in the judgment in KRISHNAKANT ’s case categorically held that though the witnesses have turned hostile, the same would be a matter of trial and the same cannot be appreciated in a bail petition. It has to be noted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in X v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN which has been relied upon by the prosecution, it is held that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the trial commences, the Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. In VIHAAN KUMAR’s case also, the Apex Court while making an observation, particularly taken note of the fact that accused is in custody for a longer period. In the case of UNION Of INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB , the Apex Court observed that, if the accused is in custody for longer period, the Court has to take note of the same. But, in the case of JAVED GULAB NABI SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER discussion was made with regard to exercising of discretion that appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; till this date, the Trial Court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge. But, in the case on hand, charge is framed and 15 witnesses have been examined and also prosecution categorically says that they will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months. The accused has the right for speedy trial and an observation is made that the trial will ultimately conclude but what period of time was not certain. When the prosecution submit that they will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months, merely because this petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail. When the prosecution submit that they will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months, merely because this petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail. Among the witnesses, who have been examined before the Court, some of them have supported the case of the prosecution and some of them have turned hostile and they have been cross-examined by the prosecution. As already discussed, merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 18. This court also while deciding the bail petition cannot sit and appreciate the material available on record and the same is the domain of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence available on record. However, taking note of the fact that petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years, it is appropriate to give direction to the prosecution to conclude the trial within a time bound period. Though, it is submitted that it takes 6 to 9 months to conclude the trial, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial and dispose of the case within 6 months. 19. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is dismissed. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within 6 months. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the prosecution is directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within a time bound period of 6 months.