The main legal point established is the discretion of the court to grant regular bail based on the nature of the allegations, duration of incarceration, and mitigating circumstances, as provided under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ORDER :

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with I-CR No.246 of 2019 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat for offence under Sections 304, 308 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

3.1 It is submitted that the witnesses would be reduced as prosecution would not examine formal witnesses and in fact, 37 witnesses have already been examined.

3.2 It is submitted that prior to the present incident, previous incident had occurred in another tuition class, after which Fire Officer had issued specific instructions to tuition classes to take necessary precautions. Despite, the applicant has failed to take necessary precautions, which resulted into the incident.

3.3 It is submitted that there is no delay on the part of prosecution. It is submitted that five accused persons have applied for discharge. There applications were rejected by the Sessions Court, who have approached this Court and this Court has granted stay qua two co-accused. However, trial qua other accused persons has been has been segregated and is in progress.

4. Learned Advocate for the victim submitted that the applicant has failed to take even basic precautions knowing full well that his premises would be occupied by students. The applicant did not have any permission nor did he have any electric connection and the stress-case, which was the only access, was also of wood which was burned out by fire, thereby locking escape of the students.

4.1 With regard to mitigating circumstance, learned Advocate for the victim has drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in matters of other co-accused and submitted that the Court has passed order of depositing substantial amount.

5. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was only a tenant and had taken on rent and premises and had put up facilities which included fire fighting facility which is evident from the statement of witnesses. It is submitted that the applicant was not responsible for the design of structure nor was he aware of the status of permission as he had blindly relied upon broker and builder themselves who had assured the applicant about legalities of the structure.

5.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant once again drew attention of the Court to statements of various witnesses to the effect of starting of fire on the second floor, with which the applicant has no connection.

6. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

I. The FIR is registered on 24.05.2019 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 24.05.2019.

II. The applicant is in jail since 25.05.2019.

III. Investigation is concluded and charge sheet is filed.

IV. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since three and half years, where maximum sentence is of ten years. Moreover, qua some of the co-accused, trial has been stayed by this Court pursuant to their respective applications for discharge.

V. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the applicant is young teacher belonging to teachers family, where parents are retired teachers and sister is also teacher.

VI. Submission of learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the incident was a fire incident where fire had begun from second floor and as per the FIR and investigation, fire spread to 4th floor through a combustible