Regular bail may be granted on the ground of parity when a co-accused with a similar role is released, especially after the chargesheet is filed, adhering to the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is exception' under Article 21 of the Constitution.

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. 11202056251011 of 2025 registered with Kalavad Rural Police Station, Jamnagar, District: Jamnagar, for the offences under Sections 311, 310(2), 310(5), 309(4), 309(6), 305(a), 331(4), 118(1), 117(2), 61, 54 of BNSS as well as under Section 13591) of the G.P. Act .

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused, they have committed the offence. The co-accused Munno has committed the loot by snatching the Gold ornaments of the injured and committed dacoity of Muddamal worth Rs. 1,45,500/-. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. The applicant has no past antecedent. The co-accused Munno is already granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court and on the ground of parity also, applicant may be enlarged on bail. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, 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 requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail application. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.

[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) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 07.12.2025.

(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

(4) No past antecedent.

(5) Co-accused Munna having similarly situated role is enlarged on regular bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also ( Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999), present application deserves consideration.

(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time.

(7) Since the applicant is hailing from Madhya Pradesh, he shall furnish the Aadhar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating OfÏcer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number, SIM number without prior permission of Trial 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