Anticipatory bail can be granted when custodial interrogation is not necessary, considering the nature of allegations and cooperation from the applicant.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I – 471 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2), 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Having heard 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.

6. This Court has considered following aspects, (a) it is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that applicant has worked as an agent in the transaction in question between the complainant and the co-accused Imran Ahmed Avan;

(b) it is further submitted that the good sent by the complainant is already dispatched through Mitco Rail Cargo to Imran Trading Company and the good is duly received by Imran Trading Company.

(c) I have perused the investigation papers including the statement given by Mohmad Rohaan Mohmad Rauf Mirza, owner of the transport company.

(d) in connection with the application given by the complainant, applicant appeared before the investigating agency and his statement is recorded on 17.10.2019.

(e) Looking to the role attributed to the applicant, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

7. 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 .

8. In the result, the present application is allowed.

The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I – 471 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 23.01.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and

2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fac