The absence of evidence linking the accused to the offence allowed for bail under the BNSS, emphasizing rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

ORAL ORDER

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

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-11207048240518 of 2024 registered with Morva(H) Police Station, Panchmahal.

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

4. 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.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail interalia contending that the applicant has actively participated in the alleged offence and there were as many as 49 cattle which were allegedly kept for the purpose of slaughtering had been recovered from the premises belonging to the present applicant. It is further submitted that there are other co-accused who are yet to apprehend. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant was found with 49 cattle which was allegedly kept for the purpose of slaughtering. However, there are no evidence connecting the present applicant with the alleged offence. Considering the aforesaid aspects so also the fact that there are no antecedents against the present applicant, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has 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 16.06.2024.

(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 .

8. 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 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Offi