Anticipatory bail may be granted when the applicant cooperates with the investigation, has no prior convictions, and the nature of accusations does not necessitate 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.11210003250108 of 2025 registered with Adajan Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by this Court, the applicant has joined the investigation and even he is ready and willing to join the further investigation, if required. Hence, now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Even, the similarly situated co-accused are granted anticipatory bail and even the applicant is not having any past antecedent. 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 original complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused persons have siphoned off the amount in a systematic manner and money trail has to be recovered for which thorough investigation is required and therefore, 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 and are punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years;

(2) Applicant has joined the investigation and even he is ready to join further investigation;

(3) No case for custodial interrogation is made out;

(4) The dispute is qua partnership business;

(5) Even considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014)8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51 and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892

[5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 as well as 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) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present appl