Court granted bail considering applicant's prior bail, absence of criminal history, and commitment to comply with conditions, balancing liberty with trial integrity.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.B.Thakor appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11217030231450/2023 registered with Siddhpur Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC .

3.1. The applicant having been arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR, had been enlarged on regular bail by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 and whereas, since the applicant had not remained present during the trial, the learned Trial Court had issued a non-bailable warrant against the present applicant and the applicant having approached the learned Trial Court for cancellation of the said warrant which had not been acceded to and the applicant having been arrested, having approached the learned Sessions Court and vide order dated 20.01.2026, the learned Sessions Court having rejected the said application, the applicant has approached this Court by way of present application.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is filed 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. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The fact of the applicant having been enlarged on regular bail in the substantive offence.

ii. The fact of the applicant having no antecedents, that is to state that he does not appear to be an hardened criminal.

iii.The fact of the voluntary submission made by learned advocate Mr.Thakor under instruction that applicant, as a pre-condition of his release, would deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- before the learned Trial Court and whereas, the said amount shall stand a surety for the applicant to attend the trial regularly.

iv. The fact of the applicant being in custody since 07.01.2026 on account of the regular bail granted to him being canceled.

v. Considering the above, while this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Court had committed no error in not releasing the present applicant, yet, for the above reasons, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applic