The presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty must prevail unless substantial evidence suggests the accused's involvement in the crime.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) 

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 “ BNS S”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11206023240368 of 2024 registered with Kheralu Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS ”) and Section 135 of the GP Act.

3. 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 02.08.2024. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR solely on the basis of suspicion, as there was a dispute regarding a monetary demand between the applicant and the deceased. There is no iota of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, and there is also no eyewitness, despite the incident took place in a public place in broad daylight. Even the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence indicating the applicant's role in the commission of the offence or involvement in the present incident. The applicant has no past antecedent. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the present applicant is the sole accused in the FIR. On the morning of the incident, the deceased had informed about the applicant's behavior, stating that he had been threatened by the applicant in connection with the recovery of money. The alleged incident took place at 5:00 p.m on the same day. The applicant is involved in the offence, and the motive is clear. Furthermore, bloodstains were found on the applicant's clothes, indicating his connection to the crime. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

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) The applicant is behind the bar since 02.08.2024;

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

(3) Prima facie, it appears that the applicant is named in the FIR solely on the basis of suspicion, as there was a dispute regarding a monetary demand between the applicant and the deceased. There is no iota of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, and there is also no eyewitness, despite the incident took place in a public place in broad daylight;

(4) As per the prosecution motive attributed to the present applicant is only that he did not intend to repay the amount to the deceased in this regard alleged incident took place;

(5) First part of the incident took place at 7:45 A.M. when the deceased told his son that the present applicant has threatened him and thereafter the inc