ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Manan Patel for learned advocate Mr.P.K.Jadeja appearing on behalf of the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Pritesh Shah appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Shah waives service on behalf of respondent no.2.

3. The present appeal is filed by appellant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I-141/2019 registered with Vadaj Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 506(2), 294(B), 120(B), 114 of the IPC, Sections 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that considering the role attributed to the appellant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the appellant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and learned advocate for the complainant have vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present appellant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers.

Following aspects are considered:-

i. While the offence concerned is very serious, yet, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the trial has been delayed.

ii. It is pointed out that the present appellant is in custody since 29.06.2019 and whereas, in the interregnum, i.e. in the year 2022, while the appellant was on temporary bail for a period of 262 days, except for the said period, the present appellant has been in custody all throughout i.e. for around 7 years.

iii. The report submitted by learned Sessions Court as per the direction of this Court inter alia indicates that while around 6 witnesses including the doctor has been examined, upon notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 17.03.2026, the Court has been designated as exclusive court for taking up scheduled offences investigated by the National Investigation Agency, hence, the matter is now transferred to a different Court.

iv. It is also pointed out that there are in all 45 witnesses and considering the same, it would not appear that the trial will conclude any time soon.

v. Having regard to such a position, more particularly, since it appears that the present appellant is in custody since around 7 years and the trial not likely to conclude any time soon, only on the ground of delay in trial, this Court is inclined to consider this appeal.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the appellant on bail.

9. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on