Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in cases where an investigation is substantially complete, and no evidence exists to necessitate further custodial interrogation. Continued detention without such necessity constitutes pre-trial conviction, contrary to the constitutional protection of personal liberty.

ORDER

1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2) The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11206023260189 of 2026 registered with Kheralu Police Station, District - Mahesana, for the offence under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 135 of the GP Act .

3) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recover or discover from the applicant. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that, the applicant is involved in serious offence and has played active role in the commission of the present offence. Considering the conduct of the applicant, application does not deserve any consideration.

5) 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) I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is almost over;

(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 19.05.2026;

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

(4) There is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future.

(5) After receiving the injury the complainant fell unconscious and delay was occurred in registration of FIR and hence the argument of delay in registration of FIR is not maintainable.

(6) The prosecution failed to show as to why the custody of the applicant is required for further investigation.

7) This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

8) In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the app