ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Darshan Varandani appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Katheria appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11204041251017 of 2025 registered with Mahemdabad Police Station, District: Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.N. Act and under Section 66(c) and 66(d) of Information Technology Act. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. Though the FIR is very serious inasmuch as the allegation levelled in the FIR is that offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the IPC and whereas, the present applicant is the only accused in the said offence. ii. It would appear in this regard that though the incident is stated to have happened in the presence of around 20,000 persons, that is on the night of ‘Sharad Poonam’, when a function had been organized in a village and whereas, it would appear that the investigating authority could not find out a single person who had witnessed the incident in question. iii. iii. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant and his brother are alleged to have started a quarrel during the garba night and whereas the organizers, along with some other persons had caught hold of the present applicant and his brother and handed over to the police personnel present there, on bandobast stating the present applicant and his brother were creating mischief. It later appears that the crowd as well as the police party seems to have realized that somebody had been inflicted with a knife injury and the investigation inter alia revealing the role of applicant basis an alleged confession by the present applicant to his brother. iv. While learned APP would stress upon the recovery of the knife at the behest of the present applicant and some blood stains found on the pants of the present applicant yet, investigation would also prima faice reveal that there was an altercation going on and whereas, the deceased was also a part of the group, which were fighting and whereas, under such circumstances, merely because of some blood stains found on the clothes of the present applicant, the applicant could not be attributed the fatal blows. v. The recovery of the knife also to this Court may could not be the only reason, more particularly since the incident happened in the midst of a crowd of around 20,000 people and whereas, no one is stated to have witnessed the incident in question. vi. The circumstance to this Court being too hazy to continue the present applicant in custody for the offence in question. Discretion is required to be exercised. vii. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is a 21 year old person and in custody since 09.10.2025 and charge-sheet having been filed by the investigating officer. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, 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. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11204041251017 of 2025 registered with Mahemdabad Police Station, District: Kheda, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; [f] not to enter District:Kheda for a period of six months excepting for marking presence; [g] mark presence once in a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station. 9. 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 Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 10. 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. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.