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. 11189007241220 of 2024 registered with Wankaner City Police Station, Morbi, for the offences under Sections 302, 328, 201, 120B and 34 of IPC.

[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 chargesheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. There is no eye witness to the incident. Case is based on circumstantial evidence and based on confessional statement, he has been arraigned as an accused. The applicant is in custody since 24.12.2024. 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. Further, the applicant is having past antecedents and if he 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. Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; Applicant is behind the bar since 24.12.2024 There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; though the applicant is having past antecedent, he is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty.

[7.0] At the outset, it is to be noted that, though the matter has been listed time and again, on earlier occasions, an opportunity was granted to the State to explain as to what material and evidence has been collected by the concerned Investigating Officer to show the involvement of the accused. The IO was also directed through the learned APP, to remain personally present before the Court so as to assist properly learned APP and the Court regarding the nature of evidence and material collected against the accused in connection with the alleged offence.

[8.0] Today, when the matter is listed for the third time, the IO has remained absent. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the concerned IO has been transferred. It is pertinent to note that, on the earlier occasion also, time was sought on the very same ground. Today, only a constable has remained present, who is unable to properly assist the learned APP or apprise the Court regarding the material and evidence collected during the course of investigation as only he is a messenger and not conversant with investigation papers.