ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11207048240013 of 2024 registered with Morva (H) Police Station, District Panchmahal, for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 389, 452, 170, 504, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Mr. Sanjay Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that this is the successive bail application, earlier application was preferred after submission of charge-sheet, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court. Thereafter, the co-accused whose role is similar to the present applicant-accused has already been released by this Court and subsequently, on the basis of the said change in circumstances, the present bail application has been preferred by the present applicant-accused. Learned advocate further submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 12.01.2024 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate further submits that during the course of investigation, nothing incriminating material has been found from the applicant- accused. Learned advocate further submitted that the co- accused has already been enlarged on bail, therefore, considering the principle of “law of parity”, the applicant- accused, may be considered. Learned advocate further submits that all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

4. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has objected the present bail application with the vehemence and submitted that specific name and role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out in the body of the FIR. 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. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. This Court has also considered the following aspects;

a) That the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed;

b) That the applicant-accused is in jail since 12.01.2024;

c) That co-accused has already been enlarged on bail;

d) That all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions;

7. This Court has also 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.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11207048240013 of 2024 registered with Morva (H) Police Station, District Panchmahal, on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;