ORDER :

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11199016210564 of 2021, registered with Dahej Police Station, District: Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 413, 407, 285, 286, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. M. Lakhani for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent – State.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the present applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is charged with the aforesaid offences, however, the ingredients of the said offences are not satisfied.

3.1 It is further submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and is falsely implicated in the offence in question. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that there is no material to connect even remotely to the applicant with the crime. It is further submitted that out of total 19 accused, 6 accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail whereas, 8 accused persons have been granted regular bail before charge sheet by the learned Court below and accordingly, on the ground of parity and equality, the applicant is required to be granted anticipatory bail.

3.2 It is submitted that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he is the prime investor in the alleged theft of chemical, however, there is no evidence/material to substantiate the said aspect. Further, the incriminating material against the applicant is the statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in the evidence.

3.3 The learned advocate submitted that even otherwise it is improbable to commit such theft inasmuch as, seal used to be applied in the tankers, which are equipped with GPS system and are duly measured and accordingly, it is not possible to commit such a crime.

3.4 It is further submitted that the applicant is neither the owner of place of incident nor the owner of tankers and was not present at the place of offence.

3.5 Last but not the least, the learned advocate submitted that merely because the applicant has antecedents, the same cannot be the sole ground for rejection of bail. It is submitted that out of the total implications, the applicant is already acquitted/FIRs have been quashed by the Court in 8 cases. Further, for the proposition that antecedents cannot be a bar to grant bail, the learned advocate has relied upon following decisions:

i) Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 469;

ii) Visa Singh v. State (Central Bureau of Investigation), 1991 (1) Crimes 758 Delhi = 1991 CJ (Del) 684;

iii) Jaichand v. State of Rajashthan, 1991 (3) Crimes 63 = 1991 CJ (Raj) 181;

iv) Nanha S/o. Nabhan Kha v. State of UP, 1993 CriLJ 938;

v) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012 (1) GLH 93 SC.

3.6 Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is urged that present application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.7 The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as during trial and will not flee from justice.

3.8 The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for remand. It is further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant - accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that con