The judgment reinforces the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception,' asserting that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed.

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.11209016260284 of 2026 registered with Himmatnngar “A” Division Police Station, Sabarkantha, for the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 61(2), 54 of BNS, 2023 .

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. 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 on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail application. If the applicant is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant will flee from justice. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.

[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. It is alleged that present applicant along with her husband running a marriage burrow namely ‘Divya Shakti’ and the complainant had approached to said marriage burrow and fixed marriage of his nephew and for that the accused have received Rs.2.10 lakh towards brokerage and marriage of the complainant’s nephew was solemnized with another lady and it is alleged that thereby present applicant has committed an offence of criminal breach of cheating and Rs.3/- were taken from the complainant and did not pay the same to the parents of the witness Chandaniben and thereby in total Rs.5.10/- brokerage received. If we accept the said allegation as it is, even though role of present applicant is limited to give promise or to solemnize the marriage of nephew of the complainant. Except this, no role is attributed to present applicant as member of looteri dulhan gang or not any other allegation is revealed against present applicant. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) Applicant is lady and behind the bar since 27/03/2026;

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

(4) Though the applicant is having past antecedent, she is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;

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

(6) Prosecution has failed to point out the circumstances to continue or prolong his detention.

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o