The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for careful discretion in evaluating the nature of accusations and the applicant's background, particularly in commercial disputes.

ORDER :

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210015240113 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant has no past antecedent. Dispute is commercial in nature. Whatever transaction took place at the instance of accused No.1. The applicant has issued cheque to the complainant, which was dishonored and for that, notice under Section 138 of NI Act came to be issued. Even as per the say of the applicant, he has to pay Rs.7 lacs and huge amount is mentioned in the FIR. 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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has further submitted that, warrant under Section 70 of Cr.P.C came to be issued. Accused are on run and not cooperated with the investigation. Prima facie involvement of the applicant is there. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration.

4. 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) Complaint is filed against various persons.

(2) To recover an amount of Rs.2,89,15,308/-, complaint is filed.

(3) Dispute is of civil in nature.

(4) Applicant has no past antecedent.

(5) Allegation made in the FIR that, the accused by winning over the trust of the complainant, initially made some payment to the complainant and then the accused closed down their business and did not make payment.

(6) For the business transaction, the applicant has issued cheque which was dishonored and for that, proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act came to be initiated.

5. 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 propositions laid down in 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, I am inclined to allow the present application.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arres