The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation in serious offences, balancing individual rights against public interest, and found sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the assault.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

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 – accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191028250015 / 2025 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 296(b), 324(4) and 54 of BNS and Section 135(1) of GP Act.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.N.D. Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rahul R. Dholakia for the applicant has submitted that present applicant is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the offence. He has not committed any offence and he has not played any role, much less the offence under Section 109 of the BNS. Present applicant is having no past antecedents. The incident occurred in two parts; (i) initially incident took place at a pan Parlour where the injured party, Urvesh Gajjar, was not present, and subsequently (ii) in second part of incident at Saibaba Flat, where, following the earlier altercation, an assault allegedly took place. It is claimed that during this second incident, the applicant had assaulted one Urvesh on the head. The applicant had no prior connection or enmity with Urvesh, or no intent to cause harm or death to him, and lacking the mens rea, which is necessary for an offense under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It is further submitted that applicant is having deep root in the society. Only with a view to tarnish his image, he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that stick is not a deadly weapon. It is further submitted that two witnesses were shifted to the private hospital and one was shifted to the Government Hospital. Injury is simple in nature and on the very next date i.e. on 13.01.2025, they were discharged from the hospital. The applicant has sought a neutral and fair investigation by approaching the police authority on 01.02.2025. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that the present applicant is facing charges under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 296(b), 324(4), and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. The applicant is explicitly named in the First Information Report (FIR). It is submitted that the complainant and other witnesses were at Delux Pan Parlour near Vastrapur Crossing when the accused initiated a scuffle, during which one Vaibhav Manubhai Patel damaged the shop. When the complainant and witnesses urged the accused to desist, the accused left the scene. Subsequently, at Saibaba Flat, the accused allegedly returned with deadly weapons, initiating another scuffle and inflicting indiscriminate blows with wooden sticks and iron pipes. The applicant is accused of causing injuries to both the complainant and a witness named Urvesh, who were hospitalized following the incident. During the investigation, statements from witnesses, including the injured Urvesh, were recorded. Urvesh's statement implicated the applicant, and three eyewitnesses corroborated the applicant's involvement, specifically noting that he inflicted injuries with a wooden stick. The APP emphasizes that the weapon and clothing involved are yet to be recovered. Furthermore, the applicant's alibi has been investigated and found false evidence of three witnesses established their presence at the time of the incident. Hence, requested to dismiss present application as he is on run and not joined the investigation.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Rohan M. Amin appearing