Bail should be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused has no prior antecedents, adhering to the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" to protect personal liberty 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 Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11200052250016 OF 2025 registered with Valsad Cyber Crime Police Station, Valsad, for the o punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act.

[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. 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, she 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) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;

(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 29.12.2025;

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

(5) no past antecedent is reported against the present applicant;

(6) case is triable by the JMFC;

(7) The allegations against the present applicant that he used to get the commission in collusion and in connivance with one Ravi. An application viz. Binance, was downloaded and through the said app, USDT was transferred into Indian currency, and the fraud amount of Rs.2,70,236/- was transferred. Towards the commission, the present applicant has received the amount in collusion and in connivance with the co-accused;

[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 i