Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must consider the nature of accusations, potential for witness tampering, and the accused's character when deciding bail applications.

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. 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.11195060240211 of 2024 registered with Vav Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 4 and 5(h) of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is in jail since 30.07.2024. It is submitted that the complainant is a neighbor, and the complaint was registered after a delay of one and a half months on 02.07.2024, whereas the alleged offence occurred on 22.06.2024. The elder daughter of the complainant, Mayaben, aged about 19 years, was in a romantic relationship with the present applicant. As a result, she left her parental home on 22.06.2024. She gave her statement to the police on 28.06.2024, stating that she wishes to live with the applicant. Both of them also made an agreement on 01.07.2024. She has been residing with the applicant and continues to reside at his home, against the wishes of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has concocted a story and filed a false case against the applicant. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the complainant has opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the offences alleged in the FIR are serious, and the victim is a minor girl. It is further argued that the applicant gained entry into the complainant's house by exploiting their superstitions and committed the crime against the minor girl. The learned advocate for the complainant has further argued that, although the charge sheet has been filed, the victim and other material witnesses have yet to be examined in the present case. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility that he may attempt to threaten the victim and other material witnesses, thereby hampering the trial.Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has adopted the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant and vehemently opposed the present application, stating that the offence is a serious one and that the delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient ground to allow the present application. It is further submitted that the victim is a minor and that the accused took undue advantage of the relationship with the victim's elder sister. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

6. 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.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigati