The court considered the nature of allegations, gravity of offences, and the role attributed to the accused, and also referred to the legal provisions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in reaching its decision to grant anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R. No. Part-A-11822019220819 of 2022 with Navsari Town Police Station, District – Navsari, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 336, 418, 420, 425, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not 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.

4. 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.

5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigating papers and as well as 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 applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

7. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R. No. Part-A-11822019220819 of 2022 with Navsari Town Police Station, District – Navsari, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions :

(a) he shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) he shall remain present at concerned Police Station after a period of one week from the date of passing of this order between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) he shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) he shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) he shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

8. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for