The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of allegations, absence of the accused at the site of the incident, and the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned Advocate Mr. Dushyant Bhatt on behalf of the first informant is permitted to file his vakalatnama.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11211031220012 of 2022 registered with Limbdi Police Station, District: Surendranagar on 16.01.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 323, 504, 506(2), 427, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Chandrani for the applicant would submit that the allegations against the applicant was of having administered a threat, a day prior to the date of the principal incident of assault upon the first informant and whereas learned Advocate Mr. Chandrani would emphasize that the present applicant was neither present at the place of incident and whereas in the FIR as well as charge-sheet filed against other accused, the Investigating Officer has not included offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate would therefore submit that merely on account of the fact that on a day before the incident, the present applicant had allegedly administered a threat and whereas on that date the first informant not having filed any complaint or even an application against the present applicant, the present applicant merely on account of the long standing feud between both the families, may not be required to undergo the rigours of custodial interrogation.

5. Learned Advocate would submit that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage may not be necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 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 would further submit 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.

6. This application is strongly opposed by learned APP Mr. Dabhi who would submit that the first informant was brutally assaulted by the other accused and whereas the present applicant having threatened the first informant on a day prior to the incident in question and whereas the incident happening on the next day would show that there was a preplanned conspiracy.

7. To a pointed query by this Court, learned APP would submit that in the charge-sheet filed against the other co-accused, offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code has not been alleged.

8. This petition is also vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Dushyant Bhatt on behalf of the first informant, who has also tendered an affidavit-in-reply objecting to grant of anticipatory bail. Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.

8.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that on account of the brutal assault, where the other accused, had inflicted injuries with the help of very serious weapons like swords, iron pipes and sticks, the first informant, had received number of fractures on both his hands and legs and whereas permanent damage also has been caused to five fingers of leg of the first informant. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicant, having threatened the first informant on the day prior to the incident and whereas there being antecedents against the present applicant of