Bail should be granted when investigation is substantially complete and continued detention would amount to pre-trial conviction, adhering to the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" and protecting 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.11210069260197 of 2026 registered with Althan Police Station, Surat, for the offence under Sections 316 (4), 336 (2), 336 (3), 338 and 340 (2) of the BNS.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. He submitted that allegation against the applicant is that he was working as a watchman. It is alleged that by creating a false balance-sheet the applicant has siphoned off Rs.10 Lacs from the account of the society. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application on the ground that the applicnant was a salaried person in the society and he was receiving Rs.24,000/- towards salary. He has prepared a forged balance-sheet and by showing Rs.38 Lacs, he has siphoned Rs.10 Lacs by forging the signature. Considering the conduct of the applicant, application does not deserve any consideration.

[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. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is almost over;

(2) Remand is also over;

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

(4) There is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

(5) Offence is triable by JMFC Court.

(6) If the applicant is kept in custody, it will amount to pre-trial conviction;

(7) There are no past antecedents.

[7.0] 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 the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to b