The principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception was upheld, emphasizing personal liberty and the completion of investigation as key factors in granting bail.

ORDER :

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

2. The present successive 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.11204046240569 of 2024 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Kheda for the offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 111(1) (3) of BNS Act.

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the present application is the successive bail application, filed after submission of the charge-sheet and the investigation is already completed. He further submits that earlier bail application was preferred before filing of charge-sheet and therefore, the same waswithdrawn. He further submits that the FIR is filed against total 07 accused persons, wherein, the present applicant-accused is shown as accused no.1. He further submits that the incident occurred for the period between 20.05.2022 and 27.07.2024 and the FIR is registered on 27.07.2024. He further submits that alleged phone call was received to the complainant three years back and the date of commission of offence was three years back. He further submits that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy, wherein, it is alleged that the complainant and accused no.5 and his friend Mansurkhan Pathan and one Jecki Rame met at Nadiad and all three persons told that Laljibhai Dhola and Nitinbhai Italiya are the trustees of trust and they intend to purchase 550-600 bigha land in Kheda District. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith three persons went to the land situated at Lasundra and told that the said land is of ownership of Jecki Rami. He further submits that as a part of criminal conspiracy, the MOU was executed by Rami Jackikumar for the consideration of Rs.3.75 Crore and the complainant had paid Rs.3 crore to the Jecki Rami. He further submits that the present applicant neither a seller nor purchaser of the property. Even the present applicant had not signed in any MOU or received any amount from the complainant. He further submits that one compromise deed has been executed between the complainant and present applicant and the present applicant had paid Rs.53 lac and R.1.12 crore to the complainant for settlement. He further submits that remaining amount of Rs.2.63 crore is not returned to the complainant thought repeatedly demanded by the complainant. He further submits that though one Jecki Rami and J.P. Swami had executed the MOU with the complainant, and they have played the key role in the alleged transaction, but they are not arraigned as accused. He further submits that the chargesheet is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Based on thesuspicion, the applicant is arrested. The applicant is having two past antecedent. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, 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 requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the accused persons have hatched the conspiracy and cheated the complainant. Learned APP has submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

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 th