Anticipatory bail granted based on applicant's cooperation with investigation and absence of flight risk, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.

ORDER :

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), 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.11823004250101 of 2025 registered with Dediapada Police Station, District Narmada for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant has received goods by paying GST which he was to further transport to Shanti Constructions, Thapar, Maharashtra but prior to his preparing the bill, the vehicle was intercepted and it is alleged that the address mentioned in the bill generated by Venus Enterprise of the consignee is wrong and thereby the present applicant has committed the offence. But there is no any forgery or no wrongful gain or loss received by the present applicant. Further, the co-accused has been considered by this Court and therefore, applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Even, the applicant has joined the investigation and his statement is recorded and in this regard, Dediapada Police Station has entered Station Diary No.35/2024 under section 35(1)(ee) of the BNSS . Further, the applicant has joined the investigation and nothing is required to be further inquired or investigated against the present applicant, it is stated upon instructions that applicant is ready to join the investigation and hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, 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.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that present applicant and other co-accused are indulged in similar type of activity and merely notice under section 35 of the BNSS is complied with is not a ground to grant bail to the present applicant. During the investigation it is found that bills produced by the applicant are forged one and 44 times the tanker has passed on the same way and possibility of indulging in similar offence cannot be ruled out if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may