Regular bail may be granted after a charge-sheet is filed if the accused's specific role is not clearly established and they are neither the principal conspirator nor the mule account holder, regardless of the overall seriousness of the crime.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent-State.

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

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred 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. 11203039260002 of 2026 registered with Mendarda Police Station, District: Junagadh for offences punishable under Sections 317(3), 317(4), 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Shanhita 2023 and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant and nature of allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is submitted that since the 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.

5. As against the same, learned APP 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. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The role attributed to the present applicant not being clear even after the charge-sheet is filed.

(ii) It would appear in this regard that the amount in question had come to the account of co-accused that is accused no. 1- Firoz and whereas the amount was deposited by co-accused Prashant and Mayur, who have not yet been arrested and whereas, the present applicant probably appears to have co-ordinated with the co-accused and Firoz.

(iii) The said part also not coming out clearly from the Investigation papers.

(iv) While the offence itself is very serious that is an amount of around Rs. 2,20,00,000/ having come to the account of Firoz and whereas 32 complaints have been registered in the NCCR portal yet, considering the fact that neither the present applicant is the mule account holder nor is the present applicant the principal conspirator nor any specific role being attributed to the present applicant in the charge-sheet papers, this Court is inclined to consider the present application.

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 the allegations made 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 the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be relea