ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kishan H. Daiya for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the Respondent – State.

3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR No. 11197025211129 registered with Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) for the offenses punishable under Gujarat Animal Preservation Act as well as Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and also for the offence under the Animal Welfare Act and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending his 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. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the name of the Applicant is disclosed on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. As such there is no antecedents. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has therefore submitted that the present application may kindly be allowed.

5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

7. 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. Learned APP has further submitted that there is a serious case of animal cruelty upon the Applicant and therefore discretion may not be exercised by this Hon’ble Court.

8. 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 offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

9. This Court has considered following aspects, (a) As such there are no antecedents.

(b) On the statement of the co-accused, the name of the Applicant is disclosed.

(c) 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.

10. 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.

11. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR No. 11197025211129 registered with Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (Rural) for the offenses punishable under Guj