The court considered the prima facie case and the requirement of accused for custodial interrogation in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants, and referred to various judgments to support its decision.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the applicants.

2. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta is present for the Respondent – State of Gujarat.

3. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent – State of Gujarat.

4. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused have prayed for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11202008220663 of 2022 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, District: Jamnagar for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection to the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the present FIR is counter blast to the complaint/application filed by the petitioner no.1 against the police personnel and complainant and therefore a false and frivolous complaint is created to pressurize the present applicants, and therefore, the present application may kindly be allowed.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant has further argued that in the present case there is two months delay in filing the FIR, and therefore, as per settled law, discretion may be exercised. He further submitted that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

7. Learned advocate for the applicants 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 applicants accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the investigation be continued.

9. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused 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 anticipatory bail to the applicants.

10. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;

(i) prima facie case

(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicants.

11. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Anr. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.

11.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, t