Anticipatory bail granted based on the nature of allegations and cooperation of the applicant in the investigation, with necessary conditions imposed.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

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

[1.0] 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.11210030240581 of 2024 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 , 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Present is a commercial transaction wherein it is alleged that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 introduced the present applicant who procured on credit CVD diamonds and thereafter did not make the payment towards the same. However, 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.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate for the complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that present applicant is involved in the offence wherein by winning over the trust of the complainant he got CVD diamonds and thereafter did not make the payment of more than Rs.2 Crore. The applicant with common intention with accused persons has committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust by periodically receiving goods and not paid the payment to the complainant. Even, he is involved in similar offence subsequent to the present offence and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[4.0] 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) Allegation is that he has received on credit the goods of CVD diamonds and thereafter, he has not made payment to the complainant;

(3) Prima facie, it appears that the dispute is commercial in nature;

(4) Similarly situated co-accused is released on bail;

(5) Applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation;

(6) No case of custodial interrogation is made out

[5.0] 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. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) r