The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the absence of direct allegations against the applicant and the necessity of judicial discretion in bail considerations.

ORDER :

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – 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 accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210015240112 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant is a broker and he introduced accused Nos.3 to 5 to the complainant and received gray cloth worth Rs.1,54,44,374/- and after making part payment did not make the remaining payment and thereby duped the complainant. However, there is no allegation against the applicant that he has received any money and thereby commercial transaction is given criminal color 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. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant is a broker and investigation is at nascent stage and applicant in connivance and collusion with other accused has duped the complainant worth more than 1.5 Crores and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

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

(2) The allegation is that applicant introduced accused Nos.3 to 5 to the complainant who duped the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,54,44,374/- however, the alleged transaction is a commercial transaction and to recover the said amount, present FIR is filed;

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

(4) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant;

(5) Though applicant is having one similar past antecedent, he is governed by presumption of innocence.

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 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 application.

6. In the result, the present