The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and the nature of the injury is minor, negating the need 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. 

[1.0] 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.11190006250043 of 2025 registered with Ranpur Police Station, District Botad for the offences punishable under Sections 78(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(3), 115(2), 118(2) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant who is an army man was in the village as he was on leave and keeping grudge of the cross-complaint arising out of free fight, present applicant is sought to be arraigned. Further, when the leave of the applicant got over, he has resumed his duty and in that regard, his Commanding Officer has addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Botad dated 13.01.2025 stating that applicant has joined his services and that applicant was not at all involved in the offence and that applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation. Considering the aforesaid fact, 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 has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant came with deadly weapon alongwith co-accused with common object and intention and applicant made an assault to one Sagar who sustained injury 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 against applicant is that he assaulted one Sagar who sustained injury but perusing the injury certificate of said Sagarbhai, it appears that injury was simple in nature and he has been discharged from the hospital;

(3) Letter dated 13.01.2025 addressed by the Commanding Officer of the applicant to the SP, Botad informing that applicant has joined his duty and is not at all involved in the offence;

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

(5) No case for 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