The court emphasized that the role of the accused as a facilitator rather than a principal offender, alongside the absence of flight risk, justified the granting of bail under specified conditions.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging him on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11208002230862 of 2023 registered with Aji Dam Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 260, 406, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 475, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1)(2) of The State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP for the Respondent – State and learned Advocate appaering on behalf of the Original Complainant.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Original Complainant.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has a good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for an indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the Applicant had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The Applicant had introduced the first informant and the other co-accused to each other, and, on the basis of the same, some business transactions had taken place between the parties and out of the said business transactions, the Applicant had gained an amount of Rs.22 Lacs. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant has also opposed the Application contending that the Applicant had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The role of the present Applicant is not merely of consulting with the first informant. In fact, it was the present Applicant, at whose insistence, the first informant and the other persons had gone to Asam and had held a meeting with the other co-accused for the purpose of sale of Water Pumps to the Government of Asam. The Applicant herein has been benefited to the tune of Rs.22 Lacs out of the present offence. The other co-accused, who have been considered for grant of bail, have played a role different to the present Applicant. Therefore the aspect of parity is not applicable to the present Applicant. He further submitted that the present is a successive bail application and there being no change in the circumstances the present Application is required to be dismised. He therefore prayed to dismiss the Application.

6.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya places on record the Affidavit of the Original Complainant dated 18th March 2025 opposing the present Application. The same is ordered to be taken on record. 

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. From the record it appears that the Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence in the month of November 2023 and since then the Applicant is in the custody.

7.1 The role attributed to the present Applicant in commission of the offence in question is to the effect that the Applicant had acted merely as a middle man between the first informant and the other co-accussed and through the present Applicant some business had been entered into between the parties. After the earlier bail application was allowed to be withdrawn, the other co-accused who is more or less similarly situated to the present Applicant, has been considered for grant of bail.

8. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the facts and circumstances of the case, t