Anticipatory bail granted based on lack of past offences and willingness to cooperate, emphasizing careful judicial discretion in bail applications.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210060242071 / 2024 registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely enroped in the offence and the allegations against the present applicant is that he is proposed receiver of the alleged contraband and huge quantity of contraband IMFL containing 1584 bottles worth Rs.1,81,440/- was seized. Co-accused are already arrested and thereafter, released on anticipatory bail. Applicant is having no past antecedents of similar nature under the Prohibition Act 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 APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that sufficient material is collected against him and he was in constant touch with accused No.1 and contraband is already recovered from the conscious possession of accused No.1. Applicant is having past antecedents and two offences under the IPC is registered against him. Investigation is at nascent stage. If he enlarged on anticipatory bail, then, he may adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 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) the allegations against the present applicant is that he is proposed supplier. It appears that from the custody of accused No.1 contraband are recovered ;

(3) Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused.

(4) Upon instructions, learned advocate has submitted that applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation;

(5) no any offence is registered against him under the Prohibition Act. Only offence under Section 323 of IPC is registered against him.

[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 o