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 Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11207079260347 of 2026 registered with Halol Rural Police Station, Panchmahal, for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 338, 339 and 340(2) of the BNS.

[3.0] Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Applicant is having no past antecedents. Considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing stringent conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that applicant is involved in the offence. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[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. In present case, following aspects have been considered:

(1) Substantial part of the investigation is over ;

(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;

(3) Applicant is a practicing advocate and behind the bars since 15.05.2026;

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

(5) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time;

(6) remand period was over; nothing further required to be discovered or Recover

(7) The nature of the allegations, if perused, reveals that the present applicant had filed an application for withdrawal of the amount deposited pursuant to the award passed in MACP No.2618 of 2017 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Halol. It is alleged that an affidavit came to be filed before the learned Tribunal, wherein page Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were subsequently changed and altered, and thereby the accused prepared forged documents. Except for this, no allegations are levelled against the present applicant.

[7.0] Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint has been filed merely on the ground that the rubber stamp was not affixed on the pages of pleadings. Further, it transpires that the said application was not filed in any proceedings, and the concerned Tribunal neither proceeded further nor passed any judicial order on the basis of the alleged forged documents. The allegations are confined to the change of certain pages in the pleadings prior to the filing of such pleadings before the concerned authority.

[7.1] Considering the aforesaid facts, no purpose would be served by continuing the detention of the present applicant. Even the prosecution has failed to point out any circumstances to portrait the incarceration of the present applicant. In the absence of any specific or particular allega