Anticipatory bail granted as applicant not named in FIR, dispute settled, and no need for custodial interrogation.

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.11216001240810 of 2024 registered with Adalaj Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash K. Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Amrish Pandya for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he has been falsely enroped in the offence. Further, though the applicant is not named in the FIR, his name has surfaced during investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused. There is no allegation worth the name for the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery and important fact is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the complainant have settled the disputed and even the civil suit has been withdrawn unconditionally. Further, the applicant has only put his signature as witness in the sale deed, he has been arraigned as accused however, nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Further, even today the playground of school which was in the possession of the applicant is not with the applicant and thus there is no direct interest or involvement on the part of the present applicant as the possession of the school playground is already handed over to the complainant. 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 applicant is the mastermind of the offence and is managing the entire affairs of transaction. Even, forged documents are in the custody of applicant and applicant has played active role in execution of the forged document and sale deed and is in the possession of the suit property and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, 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 prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

(2) Applicant is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced during the investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused;

(3) Accused Nos.1 and 2 named in the FIR have already settled the dispute with the complainant and the civil suit filed by them is withdrawn unconditionally and pursuant to the settlement, sale deed is also canceled and possession of disputed playground is handed over