JUDGMENT :

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R. No. 11822006210319 of 2021 registered with Bilimora Police Station, District: Navsari for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of Gujarat Police Act.

2. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant submits that upon registration of the FIR, the applicant has been arrested on 17/3/2021 and since then the applicant is in custody. He has further submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has not committed any offence, as alleged and in fact, the entire case of prosecution so far as the applicant is concerned, is concocted and false. In fact, the applicant came to be implicated in commission of such a serious offence by the prosecution as the deceased Nimesh and his family; members had an axe to grind against the applicant. If the allegation levelled in the FIR are considered, then what is alleged is that while the deceased was being taken to Gupta Hospital, Bilimora after he sustained injuries, he informed the complainant and his son Kalpesh as well as Hardikbhai, Arvindbhai and Mukeshbhai that he was assaulted by Manoj @ Pada with an axe on his head and four to five persons assaulted upon him with iron pile and rod and thereby caused injuries on his head, parts of nose on his hand and legs, whereas according to the complainant his son named the presence of about 13 persons without any kind of overt act against at least 8 persons including the applicant out of 13 persons named by the deceased. Thus, it is clear that a the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence and allegation against the applicant is also vague and general without attributing any overt act to the applicant or even without attributing any weapon in the hands of the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he was keeping watch to see that no one comes to rescue the deceased. He has submitted that the applicant has not inflicted any blow on the deceased and as per the allegation, he was having iron road without any overt act. He has submitted that there are five antecedents, out of which, in two offences, the applicant has been acquitted and three offences are stale offences wherein also the applicant is released on bail. He has submitted that the applicant is local resident and would be easily available at the time of trial. He has submitted that since the investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed, the case of the applicant may be considered for bail.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Mr. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has further submitted that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

4. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order.

5. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, I am of the opinion that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. This Court has considering the following aspects:

(i) The applicant is in jail since 17/3/2021.

(ii) Investigation is over and charge sheet is filed.]

(iii) role attributed to the applicant is that he was standing with iron road preventing oth