Continued detention of an accused during a trial that is unlikely to conclude soon amounts to pre-trial conviction, violating the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as well as the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

[1.0] RULE.

Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11994010260007 of 2026 registered with Radhanpur Railway Police Station, District Banaskantha, for the offence under Section 305(c) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. He submits that custodial interrogation is no longer required and the custody of the applicant is not necessary as the Investigating Officer has recovered mobile phone and a portion of cash of Rs.1,02,000/-. He therefore submits that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the present application may not be allowed.

[5.0] 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.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Substantial part of the investigation is over qua present applicant;

(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 23.04.2026;

(3) No past antecedents against the present applicant.

(4) The allegation against the applicant is that he has stolen Rs.2,00,000/- cash, gold chain and one mobile phone muddamal worth of Rs.4,86,500/-. He was not disappearing during the course of investigation and surveillance is diminished.

(5) The muddamal i.e. mobile phone and cash of Rs.1,02,000/- have been recovered from the applicant.;There is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

(6) The detention is during the trial amounts to pre-trial conviction and the offence is triable by JMFC Court.

[7.0] 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, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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