Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 must be prioritized, especially when the investigation is complete and trial is delayed.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Vatsal Prajapati, learned advocate submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and submitted that he has no objection if the present applicant is released on bail.

2. He is permitted to file his appearance.

3.1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

4. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11821005230807 of 2023 registered with Devgadh Bariya Police Station, Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2-n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “ IPC ”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2024. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

7. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) The applicant is behind the bar since 21.07.2024;

(2) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(3) The applicant is only 23 years old;

(4) Initially, no complaint or report was lodged regarding the sexual assault of the victim by the applicant.

(5) Now, nothing is required to be discovered or recovered from the accused and there is no possibility of the trial taking place in the near future;

9. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration .

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations m