The court exercised discretion to grant bail due to insufficient evidence and unclear circumstances surrounding the allegations against the applicant.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Darshan Varandani appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Katheria 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. 11204041251017 of 2025 registered with Mahemdabad Police Station, District: Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 317 (2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.N. Act and under Section 66 (c) and 66(d) of Information Technology Act.

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. Though the FIR is very serious inasmuch as the allegation levelled in the FIR is that offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the IPC and whereas, the present applicant is the only accused in the said offence.

ii. It would appear in this regard that though the incident is stated to have happened in the presence of around 20,000 persons, that is on the night of ‘Sharad Poonam’, when a function had been organized in a village and whereas, it would appear that the investigating authority could not find out a single person who had witnessed the incident in question.

iii. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant and his brother are alleged to have started a quarrel during the garba night and whereas the organizers, along with some other persons had caught hold of the present applicant and his brother and handed over to the police personnel present there, on bandobast stating the present applicant and his brother were creating mischief. It later appears that the crowd as well as the police party seems to have realized that somebody had been inflicted with a knife injury and the investigation inter alia revealing the role of applicant basis an alleged confession by the present applicant to his brother.

iv. While learned APP would stress upon the recovery of the knife at the behest of the present applicant and some blood stains found on the pants of the present applicant yet, investigation would also prima faice reveal that there was an altercation going on and whereas, the deceased was also a part of the group, which were fighting and whereas, under such circumstances, merely because of some blood stains found on the clothes of the present applicant, the applicant could not be attributed the fatal blows.

v. The recovery of the knife also to this Court may could not be the only reason, more particularly since the incident happened in the midst of a crowd of around 20,000 people and whereas, no one is stated to have witnessed the incident in question.

vi. The circumstance to this Court being too hazy to continue the present applicant in custody for the offence in question. Discretion is required to be exercised.

vii. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is a 21 year