IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the general rule and its refusal is an exception, and that deprivation of personal liberty must be considered a form of punishment. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of society.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11205032231333 of 2023 registered with the Mundra Police Station, Kachchh West-Bhuj of the offence punishable under Sections 365, 342, 389, 384, 120B read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ankit B. Pandya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 16.10.2023 and he is in jail ever since. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the first information report has been filed against total six persons, out of which, except the present applicant-accused, rest of the accused persons are the police personnel serving in the Crime Branch at Kachchh. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, on 13.04.2023, the members of the Crime Branch intercepted one truck fully loaded with betel nuts in respect of evasion of custom duty. During the search, it was found that the goods lying in the truck belongs to the complainant and his partner. Therefore, the police personnel paid visit to the godown of the complainant and abducted the manager of the complainant from the said godown who was then beaten and abused by the raiding party. The complaint further states that thereafter the complainant received a call on his WhatsApp from the present applicant-accused who told the complainant that police is demanding Rs. 5 Crores to settle the dispute, however, due to his intervention, the amount of settlement is reduced to 3.75 Crores. As the complainant agreed to pay the said amount, the dispute was settled and the truck as well as the manager of the complainant were released by the police. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant and his partner paid the amount of Rs. 3.75 Crores to the applicant-accused through various modes and the said amount thereafter, according to the applicant-accused, was transferred to the members of the crime branch. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant-accused are that the present applicant-accused, in collusion with the other accused persons (police officials), planned a conspiracy and as a part of the said conspiracy, extorted an amount of Rs. 3,75 Crores from the complainant. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has submitted that after intercepting the truck, as police came to know that the present applicant-accused is having contact with the complainant, the police approached the present applicant and told him to speak to the complainant and make a deal with him. It is moreso submitted that in this entire scenario, the present applicant-accused has played a role of a mediator at the behest of the police party and the complainant.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Syed has submitted that the incident in question took place on 13.04.2023 for which the first information report has been registered on 10.10.2023, i.e. after a delay of almost six months. It is submitted that before registration of the complaint, i.e. during the interregnum period, the dispute was settled between the complainant and the applicant-accused as Rs. 3.62 Crores had already been repaid by the applicant-accused to the complainant which has been reduced into writing by filing an affidavit duly affirmed by the complainant wherein it is very categorically stated that due to some misunderstanding disputes have been cropped up between them and now the entire dispute has been settled as the amount, which was given to the applicant-accused by the complainant, has already been re