The court found that the applicant's continued detention was unnecessary given the completed investigation and imposed conditions for bail to ensure compliance and presence at trial.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191005240181 of 2024 registered with Khadia Police Station. Ahmedabad City.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for 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 Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that there is another antecedent against the present applicant for commission of similar nature of offences. The present applicant had collected the amount of Rs.12 lakhs from the first informant and other victims under the guise of allotment of a house under P.M. Aavas Yojna. However, none of the victims were allotted any house. Thus, the present applicant had siphoned away the said amount which had been received by him from the first informant and the other victims. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution it was projected by the present applicant that he was having some personal office knowledge, who was working in the Sachivalaya and therefore he can help the first informant and the other victims in the getting the house under P.M. Aavas Yojna and thus, collected the amount of Rs.12 lakhs from the first informant and the other victims. As per the case of prosecution, the victims were given a forged allotment letter and the amount of Rs.12 lakhs had been siphoned away by the present applicant. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 6.1.2025.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to th