JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11199011210473 of 2021 registered with Bharuch Rural Police Station, District: Baruch for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 411, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that as alleged in the FIR, the complainant being Child Development officer with Bharuch Taluka Panchayat, upon receiving information, raided the Huts of accused nos. 1 to 4 along with the team.

3.1. Upon investigating the spot, officers recovered 1905 packets of THR (Take Home Ration) amounting to Rs. 64,470/- as well as 1234 units of empty packets, which were supposed to be distributed to the beneficiaries under ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme) Scheme.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant has been disclosed in the alleged offence on the basis of the statement of co-accused Javedbhai and she has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. She has no past antecedent of like nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential for the purpose of investigation. Under instructions, learned advocate for the applicant states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the present applicant, the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/-.

5. 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 his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail stating inter alia that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation of the case.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

8. This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) The role of the applicant;

(b) That the applicant was not named in the FIR;

(c) The applicant is lactating mother and is survived by 5 months old child;

(d) The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the identical similarly situated co-accused has granted bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code vide order dated 04.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13487 of 2021;

(e) Prima facie considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage;

9. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged offence as well as cooperated with the investigation, I find no reason to decline pre-arrest bail to the applicant. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with a FI