Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 must be upheld unless strong grounds exist to deny bail.

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for successive regular bail in connection with FIR being FIR being C.R. No.11199057240638/ 2024 registered with Rajpardi Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the BNS

[3.0] The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicant has no involvement in the offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant was arrested on 03.09.2024 following a complaint filed by the complainant, who alleges that the applicant, a priest at the Bavagor Dargah Shrine, took advantage of his position. The complainant’s mother was suffering from mental illness, and the complainant, along with her sister, visited the shrine for treatment. They stayed at the Dargah for 40 days, during which the applicant provided accommodation, including lodging and cooking facilities. During this time, the applicant allegedly developed a physical relationship with the complainant, promising to marry her due to his wife’s inability to conceive. However, when the complainant requested marriage, the applicant denied his promise. This led to the filing of the complaint. Perusing the complaint, it appears that the said relationship is continued for 1 year and due to denial of marriage with the victim and the complaint is lodged. Now nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. There is consensual relationship. Victim is major He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on successive regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] The Learned APP has strongly opposed the present application, arguing that the applicant is named in the complaint. The allegations against the applicant are that, under the guise of providing facilities for the victim’s mentally ill mother and exploiting the victim’s belief in superstition, the applicant took undue advantage of his position. It is claimed that, through a false promise of marriage, the applicant developed a physical relationship with the victim and exploited her for a period of one year. It is submitted that applicant is having similar nature of proclivity in the past, the statement of witness have been recorded, wherein it also clearly reveals that present applicant has involved in similar nature of proclivity and has exploited her. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for successive regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[5.0] 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 threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar