Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of direct allegations against the applicant and no necessity for custodial interrogation.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

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.11215037250024 of 2025 registered with Vidyanagar Police Station, District Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 506(2), 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady and she has nothing to do with the offence and has been falsely enroped in the offence, which allegedly occurred during the period from January, 2023 to April, 2024 for which the FIR is filed in January, 2025 i.e. after a delay of more than 9 months. Applicant is arraigned only because applicant is wife of accused No.1. The allegation in the FIR is that husband of the present applicant is partner of one Shiv Shakti Immigration and complainant approached the said firm for getting work permit VISA of UK and the husband of the applicant in collusion with other co-accused duped the complainant of Rs.18.40 lakh and also forged mark-sheets of Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra for the complainant and that too out of the knowledge of the complainant. The only role attributed to the applicant is that at the time when transaction took place, she was present and she assured the complainant that he will get the VISA and except this no any allegation is leveled against the present applicant. 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 applicant is very much aware of the transaction as she was present at the time of alleged transaction 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) Applicant is a lady accused;

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

(3) The allegation against the applicant is that at the time when transaction took place, she was present and she assured the complainant that he will get the VISA and except this no any allegation is leveled against the present applicant;

(4) No property is entrusted to the applicant and/or no any money transaction done by the complainant with the present applicant;

(5) Even, forgery allegations are also not against the present applicant;

(6) Applicant is not