ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jignesh Nayak for learned advocate Mr.Gadhavi 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. 11202002260598/2026 registered with City C-Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 352 of the BNS and Sections 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders 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 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, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation being that the accused had committed offence of extortion (Section 308(5) of the BNS) as well as offence under the Money Lenders Act.

ii. Prima facie, it would appear that the FIR defies logic inasmuch as the allegation being that the complainant had taken loan from the present applicant, the present applicant being a money lender to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/- and whereas, it would also appear that the cheques which had been given by the complainant with regard to the amount in question had been dishonoured and whereas, the notice had also been sent by the present applicant and whereafter, the FIR appears to have been filed.

iii.In any case, it would appear to this Court that the present applicant having lent money to the complainant and the complainant asking the money back, would not be translated to the offence of extortion.

iv. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since 06.04.2026, without any antecedents, being a young person aged around 31 years. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, 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.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11202002260598/2026 registered with City C-Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the ti