Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty must be preserved unless substantial grounds suggest otherwise.

ORAL ORDER

Though duly served none present for the victim respondent No.2. Therefore, this matter is taken up for final disposal.

[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 regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11184002230752 of 2023 registered with Chhota Udepur Police Station, Chhota Udepur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that the victim is resided at the home of the applicant and she joined the family of the applicant. Applicant is having no past antecedents. Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered. Substantial part of the investigation is over. Though He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned advocate is ready and willing to provide local surety.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the present application and submitted that the present applicant is involved in the offence and if the applicant is released, there is a chance of indulging in similar type of illegal activity. Hence, he requested to dismiss the present application for 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 other considerations are required to be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.

Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Applicant is behind the bars since 29.01.2024 ;

(2) Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused;

(3) substantial part of investigation is over;

(4) no antecedent is reported against him;

(5) it appears that victim is resided at the home of the applicant and she joined the family of the applicant.

Without discussing the further detail on merit, the present application deserves to be allowed;

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration .

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without dis