ORAL ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-

State.

[1.0] 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 her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being CR No.11195050240808/2024 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 310(2), 351(2) and 54 of the BNS and Sections 33(3), 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. Applicant is a lady. It is alleged that the present applicant has lended a hand loan of Rs.10 lakh at the rate of 10% interest to the husband of the complainant/victim and to recover the said amount, she along with the co-accused went to the house of the Complainant/victim. At that time, they have tried to made an assault and due to this victim has consumed the sleeping medicines and they have started to beat to the complainant and forcibly taken an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the pocket of the husband of the complainant. In this regard, the complaint is filed. Applicant is having no past antecedents and therefore, no custodial interrogation of present applicant is required. 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.

[2.1] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted an undertaking filed by the applicant before this Court, stating that she will not claim any borrowed money given by her to the husband of the original complainant for his cancer treatment. She further undertakes that she will never ask him to return the money and will not claim the said amount, as per the prosecution's case.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original Complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the present applicant is a head strong person and at her instance, the alleged incident took place. It is submitted that he has lended the an amount of Rs.10 lakh for the treatment of ailment of cancer of complainant’s husband. Though an amount of Rs.19.80 lakh has been paid to the applicant. Despite the payment, they have started to visit the house of the complainant and demanded more an amount of Rs.15 lakh. In view of final payment of hand loan, when, the complainant refused to do so, the present applicant along with five unknown persons, they have not only demanded the money but also made an assault to them and forcibly taken away an amount of Rs.20,000/-. In this regard, offence is registered. Prima facie offence is made out. Further, if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence and witnesses cannot be ruled out. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[5.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the respective 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