HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
RAKESH CHAMPAKLAL CYCLEWALA @ MODI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1100 of 2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for regular bail in connection with FIR for offences under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Factors considered for bail include the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and absence of past antecedents - The applicant, an owner of a guest house, was accused of facilitating illegal activities, but no evidence required recovery from him - Co-accused released on bail, leading to parity consideration - Application granted under certain conditions. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
(B) Bail Jurisprudence - Bail is a rule, jail is an exception - Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution emphasized, with no imminent trial conclusion. (Paras 7, 8)
ORDER :
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. 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.11210030240885 of 2024 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat City, for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 144(2) and 61(2) of the BNS.
3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Chargesheet has been filed. The applicant has no past antecedent. Role of the applicant is that, the applicant is an owner of the guest house and he has facilitated the illegal activity. In such circumstances and considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that, the applicant is broker and six ladies were found during raid and sufficient material is collected against the applicant and he was owner of the Vijay Guest house. Therefore, application does not deserve any consideration.
5. 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.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:
(1) Chargesheet has been filed;
(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 15.12.2024;
(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(4) There is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.
(5) The applicant has no past antecedent.
(6) Whatever the allegation levelled is against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are owners of Vijay and Paras Guest House and both are indulged in illegal activities and six ladies were found during raid. Role of the applicant is that, he was arranged customers and working as a broker.
(7) the co-accused is already released on bail by this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity, the present application deserves consideration. Considering the decision rendered in case of Rameshbhai Batubhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 GLR 1150, on the ground of parity, the present application deserves consideration;
7. 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.
8. In the facts and circum
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; considerations for granting bail include nature of accusations and absence of past criminal record.
The court emphasized that bail is a rule and pre-trial detention is an exception, affirming the presumption of innocence and personal liberty under Article 21.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing personal liberty and the need for careful consideration of the accused's circumstances.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must consider the nature of accusations and the presumption of innocence when granting bail.
The principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception is upheld, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 must be upheld unless justified otherwise.
Bail is the rule and jail the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21, especially when pre-trial detention amounts to wrongful conviction.
Bail is the rule, and pre-trial detention should not equate to conviction, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21, especially when the accused has no prior record and the trial may take time.
The court granted bail despite the applicant's criminal history, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the nature of allegations and the applicant's compliance with conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.