Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of connection to alleged offences and absence of prior convictions, emphasizing the necessity of judicial discretion in bail applications.

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 accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being CR No.11210067250076 of 2025 registered with Saroli Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 490, 420 and 114 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 has been falsely enroped in the offence in the capacity of merchant however, infact he is working with accused No.2 who is the owner of the firm namely Radhe Creation and even the GST number and ownership of the proprietorship firm belongs to accused No.2 and accused Nos.1 and 2 had purchased goods worth Rs.28,10,390/- from the complainant and after returning the defective goods worth of Rs.2,89,086/-, Rs.25,21,304/- is yet to be paid by the accused persons. However, the applicant has nothing to do with the said transaction and even if the allegations are accepted as it is then also, allegations are pertaining to commercial transaction. Applicant is not having any past antecedent and 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 the applicant by winning over trust and faith of the complainant in collusion with co-accused has duped the complainant 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 aplethora 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 are triable by the Court of JMFC;

(2) Whatever allegation of cheating is against accused No.2 who is the proprietor of the firm namely Radhe Creation and accused No.1 and accused No.2 ordered goods from the complainant and thereafter did not pay him and therefore, FIR is filed however, the applicant is not connected with the alleged commercial transaction;

(3) Applicant is not having any past antecedent;

(4) No case for custodial interrogation is made out.

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 i