Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding bail applications.

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 “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11215002241200 of 2024 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2) , 191(3) , 191(2) , 64(2)(m), 190 , 351(3) , 352 and 329(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “ IPC ”) / 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 has been in jail since 30.11.2024. It is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed, and the investigation is over. Upon perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there was a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim. 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. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

5. Mr. Radhesh Vays, learned advocate appearing for the complainant has vehemntly opposed the grant of bail and submitted that there was enough evidence which connect the applicant with the crime. It is submitted that on 06.06.2024, when the husband of the victim was not at home, the applicant came to her house under the pretext of inquiring whether a voter slip had arrived. He asked for her WhatsApp number, claiming he needed to send the voter slip, and thus obtained the victim’s mobile number. Thereafter, the applicant began incessantly calling and blackmailing the victim. He later entered her home and committed rape. The applicant recorded the objectionable act on his mobile phone and started exploiting the victim to take undue advantage of her. The applicant is a headstrong and politically influential person, and due to this, he intimidated the victim. Therefore, the 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 has been in jail since 30.11.2024;

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

(3) Trial is yet to be commenced;

(4) The Applicant has no past antecedent.

(5) Victim is 34 years old Major lady;

(6) Now, nothing is required to be discovered or recovered from the accused and there is no possibility of the trial taking place in the near future;

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 Prosecu