Bail should be granted when the charge-sheet is filed and there is no risk of tampering with evidence, as prolonged detention before trial amounts to pre-trial conviction, adhering to the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is exception."

ORDER

1. RULE.

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

2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11201018250005 of 2025 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(1), 316(5) and 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) / The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 21(3), 23 and 25(1) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 and Section 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is in jail since 08.01.2026. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted regular bail with the imposition of suitable conditions.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

5. 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. From the complaint, it appears that the complainant has alleged that the complainant and the witnesses were lured by the accused persons into investing an amount of Rs.3.03 crore in shares/IPOs of various companies. The allegation against the present applicant is that he facilitated the accused persons in opening bank accounts into which the defrauded amount came to be transferred, and that he received commission at the rate of 3% in connection therewith. On the basis of these allegations, the offence came to be registered. However, the only allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he facilitated the co-accused in opening bank accounts, and except for these allegations, no other allegations have been levelled against the present applicant.

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

(1) The applicant is in jail since 08.01.2026.

(2) Charge-sheet is filed.

(3) No possibility of tampering the evidence.

(4) Now, nothing required to discover or recover from the accused, and there is no possibility of proceeding with the trail in the near future.

(5) The offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate and Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take it own time.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex