The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail may be granted based on the lack of evidence connecting the accused with the offence, the nature of allegations, and the accused's cooperation with the investigation.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11209024220324 of 2022 registered with Jadar Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences under Sections 354B, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Act.

3. It is the case of the first informant that he lodged the complaint alleging that she is residing with her family and doing house hold work. On 14.03.2021 at around 8 pm, while she was doing house hold work in the wash area of her residence and her parents were also present in the house, at that time, accused Nos.1, 2 and other two unknown persons came to her house. The accused No.1 informed her that since her brother has done a love marriage with her nephew, they have come to take her with them. The accused persons abused her and accused No.1 tried to catch the first informant and had also torn her clothes. The first informant was injured by iron fencing and when her father tried to interfere, he was beaten and given stick blow on the back by the accused No.1 and given fist blow by the accused No.2. Upon shouting, the persons, who were working nearby, came at the place of incident and saved the father of the first informant. Thereafter, the first informant called the police and hence, the accused ran away from the place of incident.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the applicant is arraigned in the alleged offence on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. It is submitted that the perusal of the F.I.R. reveals no ingredients disclosing the offence against the applicant.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice.

4.2 Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submitted that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent–State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) The applicant is not named in the F.I.R.;

(b) There is no ingredients in the F.I.R. to connect the applicant with the offence;

(c) There are no antecedents pointed out by the learned advocates for the respective parties;

(d) The applicant has been arraigned in the alleged offence on the basis of the statement of the co-accused;

(e) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant has remained present before the Investigating Officer and has cooperated with the investigation.

(f) Prima facie considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage;

Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inc