The judgment reaffirms the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception,' emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not amount to conviction, especially when personal liberty under Article 21 is concerned and the trial is expected to be prolonged.

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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11213016250718 of 2025 registered with Gondal Taluka Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(3), 331(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and 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. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) The applicant was not initially named in the FIR and is arraigned during the course of investigation and it is alleged that applicant alongwith co-accused persons committed heist of muddamal worth Rs.1,70,000/- however, all the accused are arrested and Rs.20,000/- has been recovered from the applicant and now the substantial part of investigation is over;

(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty and is triable by the Court of Magistrate;

(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 26.07.2026

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

(5) Though the applicant is having 21 past antecedents, he is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;

(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.

[7.0] 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.

[8.0] 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 enlarge the applicant on regular