IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the widening of discretionary powers in granting anticipatory bail under the BNSS, prioritizing individual liberty while balancing societal peace.

ORDER :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 456/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 451, 394/34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the prosecution case, Abhishek Trivedi, who is the husband of the applicant No.1 namely Parisha Trivedi, resides at Dubai (UAE), Ashish Swaroop Shukla who is Applicant No.2 in the instant case, is the uncle of Parisha Trivedi (Applicant No.1). On date of incident i.e. 04.07.2016, applicant No.1 Parisha Trivedi along with Ashish Swaroop Shukla (applicant No.2), went to her husband’s ancestral house at Rajnandgaon wherein some heated talks took place with the brother of her husband, namely; Durgesh Trivedi. At that time Durgesh Trivedi came out with certain belongings, which belong to the applicant Parisha Trivedi and it is stated that she accidentally picked up a mobile which belong to Durgesh Trivedi, the complainant. It is stated by the applicant that e-mail was immediately sent that they have mistakenly picked up a mobile phone which was having similar appearance, and wanted to return it back but the said issue has unnecessarily been made the source of dispute. It is also stated that after the report was made, closure report No. 79/2017 was filed by the police on 14.12.2017, however, that closure report also passed through the litigation and eventually the said closure report was set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the nature of dispute would show that there is no intention to commit any crime under Section 451, 394/34 of IPC as Parisha Trivedi went to the house of her husband Abhishek Trivedi and she being daughter in law of the house had the right to visit her husband’s house.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and also the counsel for complainant opposed the bail application and stated that till date the mobile has not been returned and the tampering of evidence is being done by change of the SIM. Thus, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the document and case diary.

6. The present bail application has been preferred under section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is relevant to note that the difference between the erstwhile pari materia provision of 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In the erstwhile provision there were several guiding factors which needs to be considered while granting the anticipatory bail. The new provisions, however, deletes the guiding factors which the courts hearing anticipatory bail applications may have taken into account, such as nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedents, and the possibility of the accused to fee from justice. This deletion widens the discretionary powers of the court hearing such applications.

7. The BNSS, however, incorporated the conditions which can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail in the light of the facts of the particular case, including a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.

8. Therefore, the said amendment suggest that the provisions has been amended in order to widen the scope of anticipatory bail that when there are reasonable ground for holding that a person accused of an offense is not likely to ab