Anticipatory bail can be granted when there are no direct allegations against the applicant and they show willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

ORDER :

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

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant who is accused No.3, seeks anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191037241461 of 2024 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 238 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and has been falsely roped in the offence. He has submitted that, the applicant is distant relative of the deceased and no any allegation which substantially attracts or supports the case of the prosecution that the applicant has actively participated in the alleged offence. The applicant is not having any past antecedent. FIR is filed belatedly. In such circumstances, no custodial interrogation is required. 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 submitted that investigation is at very essential stage and marriage span is only one year. It is further submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence and hamper the witnesses. Considering the conduct of the applicant, 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) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

(2) The applicant has no past antecedent;

(3) From the record, it appears that there is no direct or indirect allegation qua instigation to the deceased by the applicant;

(4) Marriage span is only one year is not a ground to refuse the bail;

(5) The applicant is distant relative of the deceased and is ready and willing to join the investigation;

(6) Similarly situated co-accused considered by this Court;

(7) No case for custodial interrogation is made out as nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant.

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 res