ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11189005242394 of 2024 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbi, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and

114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant was not present at the scene of offence. He has been arraigned as an accused merely based on the statement of the co-accused alleging that the applicant along with other accused hired the godown on rent and in connivance with other accused, brought the trucks carrying PCI coal to the godown of the applicant and replaced it by putting lower quality of coal. The stocks already recovered by the police. The applicant and one Bhagirathbhai Humbal are partners who have hired godown, except this, no role is attributed. No any loss caused to the complainant. No any evidence or proof which suggests the involvement of the applicant in the offence. Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. 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.

[3.0] 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. He has submitted that the applicant along with other accused are in activities of theft of higher quality of cola. The accused contacted the truck drivers transporting imported coal from Kandla Port and by replacing and/or mixing inferior quality of coal/sand took out high quality of PCI coal and thereby, committed theft of coal worth of Rs.3,57,13,175/-. Nonetheless, to enshrine the said offence, they used three vehicles by forging number plats and committed theft. Investigation is still going on and therefore, prima facie involvement of the applicant is revealed. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration.

[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the 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 him 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) Based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused.

(2) Allegation against the applicant is that, the applicant along with other accused hired godown on rent and in connivance with other accused, committed theft of coal by replacing/mixing lower quality of coal instead of high quality of mineral coal.

(3) Except the statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence which suggests the applicant in alleged theft of mining coal.

(4) Recovered trucks are not owned by the applicant.

(5) Nothing to be recovered fro