Anticipatory bail granted based on the commercial nature of the dispute and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, following established legal precedents.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11190002241132 of 2024 registered with Botad Police Station, District – Botad for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection 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 applicant has submitted that considering the facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

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. Learned APP has submitted that the present applicant had purchased goods worth Rs.9,72,000/- from the first informant and had not made payment for the same. It is therefore submitted that there is strong prima facie case against the present applicant. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The dispute involved in the present offence is to the effect that the applicant had purchased goods worth Rs.9,72,000/- from the first informant and had not made the payment for the same. The dispute involved in the present offence is purely of commercial nature. Having regard to the same, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. 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 applicant.

8. 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., 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. Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.

8.1 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 observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion.

9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 24.01.2025 between12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;

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