ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.K. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198035250723 of 2025 registered with Mahuva Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2), 118(1), 115(1), 352, 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the BNS Act and Section 135 of the GP Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that charge-sheet is filed, 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.

7. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has 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 applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation being that the accused had assaulted the complainant party resulting in death of the deceased and various injuries being sustained by the complainant party.

ii. While, it would appear that the entire incident had happened on account of the present applicant yet, there are two very pertinent aspects as far as the applicant is concerned namely, the fact of the applicant not being part of the group, which had assaulted the complainant party and the fact of the Investigating Officer not invoking an offence punishable under Section 61 or even stating as such as regards the present applicant having conspired with the other co-accused.

iii. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant had availed of loan taken in the name of the father of the complainant and whereas, since the applicant was required to pay the EMIs and did not pay one of the EMIs, the complainant, had called the present applicant and admonished him for not paying the emi.

iv. It appears that the present applicant had informed the same to his brother, who had further informed the same to his friends and whereas, the brother and his friends had attacked the house of the complainant and had inflicted several injuries, resulting in death.

v. As noticed hereinabove, the present applicant was not among the eight persons who attacked the house of the complainant and had assaulted the deceased and others.

vi. Considering the limited role attributed to the applicant, although, the offence is very serious, this Court is inclined to consider this application more particularly, as the role attributed to the present applicant not being the same role attributed to the other eight accused.

Vii. The apprehensions expressed by learned APP could be allayed by imposing suitable conditions.

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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge t