ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Desai appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Soaham Joshi 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.11198001240017 of 2024 registered with Nilambaug Police Station, District Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 186 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T. Act, 2000.

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, further incarceration of the applicant will not benefit the Investigation Officer in any manner. 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 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 chargesheet papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The applicant is a permanent resident of Bhavnagar district, hence would be available at the time of trial;

ii. It would appear that, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 in CRMA No.6083 of 2026 has considered one co-accused Jatin @ Jalaram for regular bail, who according to learned advocate for the applicant, has a much serious role attributed than the present applicant, and whereas, the said co-accused had been released by learned Coordinate Bench, more particularly considering that while the said co-accused had undergone incarceration for more than two years, the prosecution had cited 150 witnesses of which, only 18 witnesses had been examined, and 17 witnesses had been dropped and whereas, approximately 120 witnesses were remaining to be examined. Considering the same, since it would appear that the trial would not be completed any time soon, the said co-accused had been released;

iii. It would appear that, the said observation would apply mutatis mutandis in case of the present applicant also, since the applicant is also in custody since March, 2024 which is more than a period of two years, and whereas, the trial would not be completed any time soon, considering that around 120 witnesses are yet to be examined;

iv. The investigation being over and charge-sheet has been filed;

v. The apprehension of the learned APP, as regards the applicant would indulge in similar or such offence, if granted bail can be put to rest by imposing suitable stringent conditions;

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.11198001240017 of 2024 registered with