Anticipatory bail can be denied if the gravity of the offence and need for custodial interrogation outweigh individual rights, emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and public interest.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) / under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at Nizar Police Station, Tapi, being C.R No.11824007240916 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. Applicant is having no past antecedents and he arraigned as an accused on the basis of apprehension. The offence is registered on his name and prior to two months of alleged incident, he has sold out the vehicle and he has relied on one agreement, which is produced at Annexure-C, wherein, it is mentioned that present applicant has sold out the vehicle to one Shyambhai Vasava. He has nothing to do with the offence and no specific allegations are levelled against the present applicant.Over and above, the allegations of the prohibition qua transporting the liquor and allegation of under Section 336(2) of BNS of forgery is also levelled, but how the forgery is made out and there is no any registration of the offence of forgery. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions.

4. 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. It is submitted that present applicant is involved in the offence and till date, vehicle is on the name of the present applicant and by hatching conspiracy as a part of the pre-planned, the document of the sale of the vehicle being used, it is noting but an eye-wash, not only that the bilty is also forged one, wherein stated that the tape is going to be transported, but, it appears that the said invoice and the GST numbers are also forged. During the investigation, it was found that no such firm is situated, only, the address was found and even the said firm is not indulged in the production of the said tape or the said goods and the huge quantity of contraband i.e. 11016 bottles of IMFL worth Rs. 27,02964/-. The present applicant and other co-accused in connivance and in collusion with each other committed an offence. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required. Other co-accused are yet to be arrested. Even names and the dummy sim card being used, their contact numbers and other details are yet to be collected and they have out of reach. The present applicant is equipped with the anticipatory bail then investigation is at nascent stage and adversely effect the case of the prosecution, nonetheless, as part of the preconscipiracy, they have loaded the contraband. Thereafter, they have handed over the vehicle to the one driver being paying Rs.10,000/- remuneration towards the trip.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint, prima