Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; prolonged detention after the filing of a charge-sheet, especially when parity with co-accused exists, violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

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 Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11993011250261 of 2025 with Lakadiya Police Station, Kachchh East Gandhidham, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2026, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The learned advocate further submits that, considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing 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. 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 has been in judicial custody since 20.03.2026.

(2) The charge-sheet has already been filed.

(3) Nothing is required to be recovered or discover from the applicant.

(4) The allegations against the applicant that he is a supplier.

(5) There is no possibility of proceeding with the trial in the near future;

(6) The co-accused has been enlarged on bail therefore, in view of Law of parity laid down in the case of Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi vs State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 GLR 1150

7. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s in the FIR, withou