The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.

JUDGMENT :

(Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.)

1. 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 the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11198068230274 of 2023 with Bharatnagar Police Station, Bhavnagar City for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and under Sections 66 (D) of the IT Act and Sections 12(1), 12(3) and 12(4) of the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

2. Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely implicated in the offence and he has nothing to do with it. It is submitted that a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as there is no specific role attributed to the applicant in the complaint and no material available that connects the applicant to the offence.

2.1 It is further submitted that whatever allegations leveled against the present applicant are based on the statement of a co-accused, which has no prudential value. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the present applicant are based on the claim that they hatched a criminal conspiracy, fabricated documents, manipulated photographs of various students/incumbents using a laptop, and arranged for dummy persons to take exams in place of the original students/incumbents for the sake of earning money. However, there is currently no evidence to substantiate any transactions related to these allegations. It is further stated that the statement of co-accused Mahesh Baria, who also appears as a dummy candidate, has not been recorded so far, while the whereabouts of the other two co-accused, namely Hiren Pandya, Dhruv Dave and Mahesh Baria, are unknown. It is submitted that the present applicant is a teacher, and there is no reason to believe that he would not cooperate in the investigation.

2.2 It is further submitted that in the Call Detail Records (CDR), the prosecution has attempted to implicate the accused by showing that he had conversations with another co-accused person, who happens to be his maternal uncle. However, there is no evidence proving that these conversations are related to the alleged conspiracy. 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.

2.3 Learned Senior 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.

3. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that this is not a fit case for consideration o