Regular bail may be granted on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is exception," particularly when the investigation is complete and the accused was not in conscious possession of the contraband.

ORDER

[1.0] RULE.

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

[2.0] [2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11189005251964 of 2025 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbi for the offences under Sections 65 (a), 65(e), 116-B and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition (amendment) Ordinance, 2016.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Applicant is having no past antecedents. It is submitted that investigation is over. Similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court and therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing stringent conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that applicant is involved in the offence. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[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. In present case, following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) The applicant is having one past antecedent;

(3) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;

(4) Applicant is behind the bars since 08.03.2026;

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

(6) Applicant was not found in conscious possession of the muddamal;

(7) The co-accused who have played active role was already considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the different bail application;

[7.0] Considering the decision rendered in case of Rameshbhai Batubhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 GLR 1150, on the ground of parity, the present application may be allowed.

[7.1] 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