Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, completion of investigation, absence of prior criminal history, and an amicable settlement between parties constitute sufficient grounds to exercise judicial discretion for granting bail, particularly when the trial is delayed.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210045231942 of 2023 registered with the Pandesara Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 30.04.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than three and half years, and out of 18 witnesses cited by the investigating agency to be examined, only 4 witnesses have been examined so far, which is indicative of the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable long period of time to conclude, and as such, considering the period of incarceration already spent by the applicant, keeping the accused behind the bar for such an indefinite period of time, would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction. He has further submitted that even the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, and an affidavit to that effect has also been filed by the complainant, which is placed and ordered to be taken on record. Moreover, the other co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court. He has also submitted that the present applicant does not have any past antecedents. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that out of 18 witnesses, 04 witnesses have already been examined, and as such, there are all possible chances of trial being concluded shortly. He has further submitted that thus considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Priyanka I. Patel appearing for the original complainant has submitted that the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, which is also confirmed by the original complainant by filing an affidavit, who is also personally present before the Court. She has submitted that the complainant has no objection if the applicant is released on bail.

6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. This Court has also considered the following aspects;

a) That the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed;

b) That the other co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court;

c) That the applicant is in jail since 30.04.2023, i.e. for more than three and half years, and as such, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable long period of time, the applicant deserves to be released on bail;

d) That, the matter has already been settled between the parties, which is also reduced into w