Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; in the absence of strong evidence, personal liberty must be prioritized.

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 I-C.R. No.316 of 1999 registered with Jetpur City Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 , 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “ IPC ”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

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 16.04.2024. It is submitted that the incident took place on 28.10.1999, whereas the applicant was arrested on 16.04.2024. According to the FIR, the complainant is the owner of the firm, and the deceased worked as a night watchman at the said firm. Around 20 days prior to the incident, the applicant and another person had arrived from Uttar Pradesh seeking work and were staying at the firm at night. On 27.10.1999, when the complainant returned to the firm, he found the door unlocked. Upon searching, he discovered the dead body of the watchman, and both the boys were missing from the premises. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against them. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident and no evidence which connects the applicant with the crime and even “A” Summary has been filed by the police. 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. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

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

Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) The incident took place in the year 1999 whereas the applicant has been arrested on 16.04.2024.

(3) Prima facie, it appears that there is no eye-witness and the case is based only on the circumstantial evidence; (4) Considering the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it appears that the prosecution is relying on the confessional statement of the accused and the statement of the complainant, whose firm the deceased was working for.

(5) Prima facie, it appears that no other evidence has been produced by the prosecution to support its case and connect the applicant to the crime.

(6) Now, nothing required to discover or recover from the accused and there is no possibility of the trial taking place in the near future.

7. 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, H