[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 F.I.R. No.11200051230848 of 2023 registered with Dungra Police Station, District Valsad for the offences under Sections 302, 34, 120(b) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 24(1A), 25(1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

[3.0] Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave, appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 21.07.2023 and that the trial has not substantially progressed till date. It is submitted that the present application is filed primarily on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial and not on the merits of the case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that similarly situated co-accused, including those attributed with a greater role, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench on the ground of delay. It is also submitted that, although the applicant has 14 antecedents, a co-accused having 38 antecedents has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench. Learned Senior Counsel has confined his submissions strictly to the ground of delay and, therefore, requested that the applicant be enlarged on bail on the said ground. 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 has opposed the present application, submitting that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and played an active role in its execution. It is further submitted that the case involves a contract killing and that a clear motive is attributed to the applicant for committing the alleged offence. Considering the applicant's past antecedents and the severity of the punishment prescribed for the offence, it is urged that the present application be dismissed.

[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 cartage-sheet is filed and investigation is over;

          (3) Applicant is behind the bar since 21.07.2023;

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

          (5) The role attributed to the applicant is that he was a member of the unlawful assembly and a participant in the alleged conspiracy. There is no specific allegation that the applicant opened fire. It is alleged that co-accused Ajay opened fire, whereas the applicant was in the company of co-accused Gaurav, who has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench.

          (6) A perusal of the charge-sheet papers reveals that the prosecution has cited as many as 113 witnesses. Further, as recorded in the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in CRMA No.6645 of 2026, charges are yet to be framed. Since similarly situated co-accused have been released on bail, and having regard to the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present applicant deserves consideration. It is also pertinent that a co-accused having 38 antecedents has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench, whereas the present applicant has 14 antecedents.

          (7) Continued incarceration of an undertrial prisoner, without commencement of the trial or reasonable progress therein, may amount to pre-trial punishment. In view of the decision in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 12, and as there appears to be no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time, the present application deserves to be considered.

          (8) Co-accused having similarly situated role are enlarged on regular bail and therefore, on the ground of parity also (Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999), present application deserves consideration.

          (9) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own 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 bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11200051230848 of 2023 registered with Dungra Police Station, District Valsad on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one local solvent surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/she shall;

          (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

          (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

          (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

          (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

          (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a week till filing of the chargesheet and after filing of the chargesheet, mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months;

          (f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court;

          (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

[10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.