The court may refuse discretionary bail to a habitual offender with a significant history of serious crimes (including GUJCTOC and IPC offences), even after a charge-sheet is filed, if the applicant's antecedents suggest a strong tendency to engage in criminal activities.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kishan Nayi appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11210067260102 OF 2026 registered with Saroli Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 351(3)(4), 352 of the BNS Act and under Section 135 of the G.P. Act .

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State,and having perused the documents on record including the charge-sheet papers, this Court is dis-inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant for the following reasons:

i. Allegation being that the accused had committed the offence under Sections 309(6), 351(3) etc.

ii. The present applicant being the sole accused, the allegation being that the accused had threatened the complainant with a knife, and robbed the complainant of Rs.4500/- and had also threatened the complainant of dire consequences.

iii. Learned advocate Mr. Nayi would submit that the present applicant has been falsely implicated inasmuch as it is submitted that the complainant himself, had approached the learned trial Court, during bail application and whereas, the complainant had inter alia alleged that he was not present in the State when the incident had happened.

iv. As against the same, it would appear that the complainant had approached the learned trial Court, at the stage of the application for bail preferred by the present applicant before the charge-sheet and whereas, the same had been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2026 and whereas, the applicant had approached this Court way by preferring the Criminal Misc. Application No.4837 of 2026 and whereas vide an order dated 25.02.2026, this Court had disposed of the said application with liberty to approach the learned trial Court after charge-sheet.

v. It also appears that in the application preferred by the present applicant post charge-sheet, the complainant had neither remained present nor had made any such allegation.

vi. Having regard to the same, it would appear that the issue, of the complainant having made certain allegations, ought to have been raised by the present applicant at the pre charge-sheet stage when the complainant had approached the this Court and whereas since the same wa