ORDER

This is an application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 11191034220261 of 2022 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for offence under Sections 420 and 114 etc. of Indian Penal Code and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

4. I have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anshul N. Shah, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant–accused and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 665.

5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the learned Trial Court has already protected the applicant vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 5015 of 2022. Further, the issue raised in present application is directly covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 577. Therefore, it is relevant to take into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:—

“We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:

Categories/Types of Offences

(A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B and D.

(B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

(D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

Requisite Conditions

(1) Not arrested during investigation.

(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet (Siddharth vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 615)

Category A

After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance:

(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

(c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next dates of hearing.

(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

Category B/D

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

Ca