Anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR is based on misunderstanding and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation.

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 , the appellant-accused has prayed for enlarging the appellant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11192064240097 of 2024 registered with Dholka Rural Police Station, Ahmedabad.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the deceased had signed a sale-deed merely in the capacity of a witness. The appellant has not usurped any land belonging to the deceased. Moreover, the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and the complainant has also no objection, if the present appellant is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present appeal and enlarge the present appellant on anticipatory bail subject to suitable conditions.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned advocate for the original complainant submits that the FIR had been lodged by the first informant due to some misunderstanding and since the present appellant had not usurped any land belonging to the deceased, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court.

She, therefore, submitted to pass appropriate order.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the statement made by learned advocate for the original complainant that the FIR had been lodged by the first informant due to some misunderstanding, the appeal deserves consideration. 7. This Court has considered following aspects, (a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;

(i) prima facie case (ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565 . Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated

29.01.2020.

8.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

9. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The appeal is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with a FIR being No. C.R. No. 11192064240097 of 2024 registered with Dholka Rural Police Station, Ahmedabad on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on

18.09.2024 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper t