Anticipatory bail may be granted when the applicant shows willingness to cooperate with the investigation and when custodial interrogation is not necessary.

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 her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11216009240686 of 2024 registered with Mansa Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady accused and has been falsely implicated in the offence only because she is member of managing committee of the society and has committed negligence in performing her duty due to which the Secretary of the society has misappropriated Rs.47.11 lakh of the society with which the present applicant is not connected however, the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and 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.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that though applicant is the member of the Managing Committee of the Society, she has been negligent in performing her duties due to which Secretary of the Society has misappropriated huge amount of Rs.47.11 lakh and in this regard, statement of Secretary is recorded before the Auditor Grade-II (Milk), Milk Audit Office, Mahesana wherein also the Secretary i.e. accused No.1 has admitted that he misappropriated the said amount. 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) Applicant is lady accused;

(2) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty and is triable by the Court of JMFC;

(3) The only allegation against the applicant is that she remained negligent in performing her duty as the member of the Managing Committee due to which the Secretary of Shree Dhameda Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society Ltd. misappropriated an amount of Rs.47.11 lakh however, the applicant has not got any monetary benefit;

(4) Present case is based on documentary evidence;

(5) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present application;

(6) 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 reit