The principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception is upheld, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.

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.11199060240262 of 2024 registered with Panoli Police Station, District Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 395, 397 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “ IPC ”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered as the charge-sheet is filed. He therefore submits that, 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 requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that applicant is having three past antecedents and if released then he may indulge in similar illegal activities. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

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) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;

(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 23.05.2024;

(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

(5) Though applicant is having past antecedents however, is governed by the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty;

(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time;

(7) Similarly situated co-accused has been released by this Court and therefore, in view of decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Batubhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1150, applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity.

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 circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise