Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence for bribery and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 , the Applicant has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I - C.R. No.03 of 2024 registered with Jamnagar ACB Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the Applicant and learned APP Mr. Soham Joshi for the Respondent - State. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. He submitted that considering the facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail contending that the initially a notice came to be issued on 6th June 2024 asking him to remain present for collecting the voice samples for Voice Spectrography Test. The said notice was served upon the Applicant on 7th June 2024. On 7th June 2024, the Applicant had made an endorsement over the said notice that he did not intend to give his voice samples as no such voice sample can be collected without the order of the competent court. Thereafter the Applicant had filed anticipatory bail application and during the hearing of the said application, consent was given for collecting the voice samples for the Voice Spectrography Test by the present Applicant. Thus, the Applicant has not cooperated the investigating agency. He further submitted that thereafter the Voice Spectrography Test was conducted and the report has been received which implicates the present Applicant into the offence. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. As per the case of the prosecution, the present Applicant had demanded an illegal gratification from the first informant for doing him some undue favour. The said conversation had taken place on mobile phone and the same had also been recovered by the investigating agency. The Applicant herein was thereafter also subjected to Voice Spectrography Test and the report of the same has also been received. There is nothing on record as regards any acceptance of any illegal gratification by the present Applicant.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the role attributed to the accused, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

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