Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 must be prioritized, considering the nature of accusations and the completion of investigations.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for successive regular bail in connection with FIR being FIR being C.R. No.11207002240381/ 2024 registered with Godhra ‘B’ Division Police Station, Panchmahal for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(1) and 61(2) of BNS.

[3.0] The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicant has no involvement in the offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant was arrested on 20.10.2024. Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. Applicant is having no past antecedents. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that merely filing of the charge-sheet is not a ground to grant bail. It is submitted that sufficient material is collected against the present applicant. The present applicant is working as a computer operator, at that time, he has forged the documents and taken undue advantage and forged the documents under RTS proceedings. Co-accused is required to be arrested. It is submitted that the allegations against the present applicant is serious one and he has forged the order of Dy. Collector. If he released on bail possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for successive regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[5.0] 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.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

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

(3) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused;

(4) applicant is arrested on 20.10.2024;

(5) The allegations against the present applicant is that when he was working as a computer operator (Data Entry Operator) in Prant Office, Revenue Department, Godhra, at that time, he has taken undue advantage and forged the documents. It appears that similar name of mother of complainant and accused tried to evict the property and forged the order of Deputy Collector;

(6) Case is based on documentary evidence;

(7) commencement of trial will take its own time;

(8) co-accused is on run is not a ground to deny the bail;

[7.0] 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