1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11217006231090 of 2023 registered with Chanasma Police Station, Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 34, 323, 324, 326 and 447 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 27.03.2024 and since then, he is in custody and thus, the applicant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 2 years. The applicant is aged about 60 years. He further submitted that after the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the applicant on 06.09.2024, the other co- accused who, as per the case of prosecution, had played a vital role in commission of the offence, had been considered for grant of bail by the learned Sessions Court and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also required to be considered for grant of bail. He further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant in the FIR is to the effect that he had made telephone calls to the other co-accused prior to the incident, during the course of incident and after the incident. However, the other co-accused who had actively participated in commission of the offence in question have been considered for grant of bail by this Court as well as by the learned Sessions Court. He further submitted that sofar as the aspect of conspiracy is concerned, no material whatsoever implicating the applicant into a conspiracy for commission of the present offence. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the disputed land belonged to the present applicant and there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the present applicant had made telephone calls to the other co-accused prior to the incident and after the incident and also during the course of incident. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jigneshkumar Nayak appearing for the complainant has also opposed the present application contending that the orders of the co-accused, who has been considered for grant of bail by the learned Sessions Court, have been challenged by the complainant before this Court by filing the application for cancellation of bail. Sofar as the role played by the present applicant is concerned, the applicant had made telephone calls to the other co-accused who had participated in the offence in question. The present applicant and his son, who is also one of the co-accused, are the owners of the land and therefore, they had strong motive for commission of the present offence. He further submitted that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the present applicant had made number of calls to the other co-accused during the course of incident. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The applicant had earlier Criminal Misc. Application No.17234 of 2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024. While dismissing the said application, this Court had made the following observations:

          "5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it appears that the dispute as regard the land was going on between the present applicant and the deceased. On the fateful day, the first informant and his other relatives had gone to fence the land, which was owned by them to which the other-side had objected. The dispute pertaining to the said land had been going on between the parties for quite some time and the same dispute had become acrimonious and the parties were at loggerheads with each other because of the said dispute. The deceased and the other persons had gone to the disputed land for getting the same fenced to which the accused persons had objected and the altercation had taken place, wherein the deceased was assaulted by some of the persons because of which he fell down, and thereafter, the co-accused had ran a car over the deceased because of which the deceased had sustained severe injuries and had succumbed to the said injuries. The said co-accused, who, as per the case of prosecution, had ran a car over the deceased, had after the incident called the present applicant and had informed him that the deceased was done to death.

          6. It is the case of on behalf of the applicant that the call details of the said co-accused Sahezad and the present applicant have been procured during the course of investigation, which indicate about no telephone call having taken place between the said co-accused and the present applicant. However, the material available on record indicates that the present applicant was very much in contact with the other co-accused through mobile-phone, who were present at the scene of offence and had participated in the offence in question. Having regard to the fact that a long drawn dispute was going on between the applicant and the deceased over a parcel of land because of which the incident had taken place, the present applicant appears to have a strong motive for commission of offence in question. Having regard to the same, no case is made out to release the present applicant on bail. Hence, the present application stands dismissed."

6. The said order was carried by the present applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the present applicant against the order of this Court dated 06.09.2024. Thus, the order of this Court dated 06.09.2024 has attained finality.

7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant is not in a position to show any change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the applicant.

8. Sofar as the aspect of parity is concerned, the co-accused, who have been considered for grant of bail by the learned Session Court, have been attributed a different role whereas the present applicant, having regard to the allegations leveled against him, happens to be the main accused in the present offence. Having regard to the same, the aspect of parity would not govern the case of the applicant.

9. Hence, the present application stands dismissed.