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.

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.11210012240846 of 2024 registered with Chowk Bazaar Police Station, Surat for the offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

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. Chargesheet has been filed. Based on the suspicion, the applicant is arrested. 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 similar 16 offences registered against him and one proceeding under the PASA is also pending. He has further submitted that, the applicant is master mind and runs his travel business in the name of Patel Travels and used to take four wheeler cars on rent and based on the same, he transferred and mortgaged the said vehicles. Thereby, the applicant has committed cheating of Rs.92 lacs and duped the money of people. Therefore, present application does not deserve 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) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty and are triable by the Court of JMFC;

(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 14.08.2024;

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

(5) The applicant is having 16 similar such offences however the accused is governed by presumption of innocence unless and until proved guilty;

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

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 ba