ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210045240063/2024 registered with Pandesara Police Station, Surat.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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.

4. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail inter alia contending that the Applicant had played an active role in commission of the offence in question as it was the present Applicant who had instructed the other co-accused to inflict a blow on the victim and on instructions the other co-accused had inflicted a blow with the help of stone on the head of the victim because of which he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. The Applicant is resident of State of Bihar and there is an apprehension that the Applicant would not be available for the purpose of trial if he is ordered to be enlarged on bail. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. From the record it appears that on the fateful day some altercation had taken place between the deceased and the accsued person over an issue of return of mobile phone and during the course of the said altercation the present Applicant is alleged to have instructed the other co-accused to inflict a blow on the body of the victim, due to which the the coaccused is alleged to have inflicted a blow with the help of the stone on the head of the victim. The present Applicant does not appear to have inflicted any blow on the body of the victim. Considering these aspects, the Application deserves consideration. This court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 4.01.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to