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.11195050240809/2024 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 351(2), 296(b) and 54 of the BNS.

[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. The alleged incident took place in connection with the another offence being FIR being CR No.11195050240810/2024 registered with Tharad Police Station, Banaskantha, wherein the applicant has lended the money to the father of the complainant to recover the same, she went to his house. It is alleged that she has tried to abducted him and threatened to kill him. In this regard 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 father of the original complainant. 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 named in the FIR. At her instance, the alleged incident took place as father of the complainant has borrowed the money from the accused No.1. Though it was already paid, with a view to recover the money and to extort more money, she reached their house. She has tried to abducted the father of the complainant in their car. Further, if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail then the possibility of tampering with the evidence and witnesses cannot be ruled out and there is a chance of breach of public tranquility. 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 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 her 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)one complaint being CR No.11195050240810/2024 registered with Tharad Pol