Anticipatory bail can be granted when there are no past criminal antecedents, no necessity for custodial interrogation, and the nature of the accusation does not warrant severe punishment.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

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.11214046241892 of 2024 dated 09.01.2025 registered with Surat Rural (Palsana) Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 108 , 85 of the BNS , 2023.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant falsely enroped in the offence in the pretext of having relationship with his earlier wife. The applicant used to talk to his earlier wife and due to this, the deceased has committed suicide and it is alleged that she was tortured by the applicant. Though there is no suicide note recovered. The alleged offence took place on 27.11.2024 and the complaint has been registered on 25.12.2024 and hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. There are not antecedents against the present applicant. 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 looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the marriage span on only three months and the present applicant used to tortured the deceased wife as he wanted to keep relationships with his earlier wife and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the offence is against women, he has therefore 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) Alleged offence occurred on 27th November 2024;

(3) No past antecedents against the present applicant;

(4) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered.

(5) The applicant married the deceased second time. Moreover on bare perusal of the complaint the allegations levelled against the present applicant is that he used to talk to his earlier wife and hence, the applicant didn’t liked the deceased.

(6) No any material on record with regard to mental or physical harassment or instigation or abatement on the part of present applicant.

5. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reporte