Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must consider the nature of accusations and the presumption of innocence when granting bail.

ORDER :

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

2. The present application is Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11202009241437 of 2024 registered with Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, for the offence under Sections 120B, 381, 385, 386, 406, 411, 413, 414, 420, 422, 424, 506 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and he has nothing to do with the offence. Present applicant is not connected with the Noor Transport and he has not participated in the alleged commission of crime. At the relevant point of time for the commission of offence, he was in the custody. Charge-sheet has been filed. Co-accused are enlarged on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also, applicant deserves bail. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused in the guise of conspiracy, but he has not extorted money or administered threats. Co-accused have obtained loan from finance company and thereafter, unauthorizedly handed over the present applicant. Allegation against the applicant is that, as and when authorized officers came to recover the said loan amount, rather to return possession the vehicle or to make payment, the accused have administered threats to the officers and thereby, committed offence. 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 submitted that, the present applicant is the main culprit, kingpin and conspirator of the crime. At the instance of the present applicant, the alleged incident took place. He is partner of one Ramji, whose role is lessor and his application was came to be withdrawn. Considering the role of the applicant, the present application may not be allowed. Investigation is going on and co-accused are on run and three vehicle yet to be recovered. Applicant is having similar nature of offence in past and if he is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence and to indulge himself in such type of illegal activities in future also. The applicant and co-accused have caused loss to the finance company by keeping unauthorizedly possession of the vehicles. In such circumstances, 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) Charge-sheet has been filed;

(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 18.09.2024.

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

(4) 63 witnesses are cited by prosecution and therefore, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

(5) No direct privy of contract with the applicant is there;

(6)