ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this 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. 11216009250632 of 2025, registered with Mansa Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 409,465,468,471,406,420 and 114 of the IPC.

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

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that, even from reading the entire FIR, the amount of Rs. 31,700/- as alleged in the FIR has not been swindled away for single day, however, it is only that the Applicant would not have to face the music on 25.05.2022 that V.M. Rathod, Inspector of Post Office, Viramgam, would have found that the amount of cash is above the threshold limit permitted. That the Applicant had indulged into withdrawing the said amount by putting thump impression, however, has no mens rea and therefore, has argued to allow the present application.

3.3 He further submitted that the present applicant has been dismissed from service and, as a result, has effectively suffered civil death.

4. As against this, the 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 and requested not to entertain this application.

4.1 Learned APP further submits that the factum of forging the thumb impression of various widow is not denied and therefore, the seriousness of offence does not get diluted and thus, argued that the Applicant would require for effective interrogation and thus, prayed to reject the said application.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the 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 merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided. However, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

a) Even from reading of the FIR, it transpires that the present Applicant in connivance with co-accused had placed thumb impression on withdrawal slips of various widow for reduction of the cash on hand beyond the threshold permitted limit by the postal department.

b) the applicant has no past antecedents;

c) the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the applicant will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial.

d) He is already dismissed fro