Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty under Article 21 must be upheld in the absence of strong evidence against the accused.

ORDER :

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

2. The present successive bail 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.11199056240242 of 2024 registered with Vagra Police Station, Dist. Bharuch, for the offence under Sections 302, 143, 147 and 149 of the 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. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Allegation against the accused is that, deceased Prakashsinh had teased and molested the wife of one Kanubhai Maganbhai Rathod and by keeping the grudge, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and killed the deceased. In this regard, FIR came to be filed. He has submitted that, the applicant has not played any active role nor he inflicted any blow to the deceased. He has no any direct enmity with the deceased. In CCTV footage also, presence of the applicant is not noticed, however based on confessional statement and co-accused statement, he has been arraigned as accused. Except the above, there is no any overtact on the part of the applicant. Considering the same, 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, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and gathered at the gate of Paras Pharma Chem Company and assaulted the deceased as the deceased had molested the wife of one Kanubhai Maganbhai Rathod of village Saykha and by keeping the said grudge, the accused have committed murder of deceased Prakashsinh. Therefore, if he is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence and hamper the witnesses. Therefore, 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) Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed;

(2) Applicant is in jail since 18.04.2024.

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

(4) The applicant has no past antecedent.

(5) Presence of the applicant is not recorded in CCTV footage.

(6) No any overtact is there or the applicant has not inflicted any blow or hold the weapon.

(7) There is no any eyewitness or corroborative piece of evidence which suggests the involvement of the applicant in the offence of murder.

7. This Court has also taken into con