ORAL ORDER

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

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.11210008231427 of 2023 registered with the Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 03.09.2023 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. He has further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since last 33 months, and out of 45 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. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant has not been named in the FIR, and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence only upon the hearsay evidence. Moreover, the other co-accused persons, including the main accused, have already been released on bail either by the trial court or by this Court. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

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 the applicant was released on temporary bail, however, he did not surrender in time and remained absconding for 45 days. Thus, considering the said conduct of the applicant as well as 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.

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

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 persons have already been released on bail either by the trial court or by this Court;

c) That the applicant is in jail since 03.09.2023, i.e. for last 33 months, 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) It is also found out that non-bailable warrant has been issued against accused No.7, and due non-availability of the said accused, the concerned trial judge is not in a position to proceed further with the trial, and as such, the applicant cannot be made to suffer due to the fault on the part of the other co-accused, looking to the fact that he is languishing in jail since last 33 months;

This Court has also 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.

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 enlar