ORAL ORDER

1. 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. 11191039260026 of 2026, registered with the Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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

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.

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.

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) it is alleged by the complainant that accused no.1-Pritesh Patel had induced the complainant by assuring to arrange Australia work permit; that during the period from 30.6.2025 to 16.1.2026, the complainant handed over her original passport and paid Rs.50,000/- in cash as advance and that fake visitor visas were provided in the entire FIR; it has been stated that the present applicant acted alongwith the accused no.1. No specific role and no entrustment is attributed to the applicant either in the FIR or in the investigation papers. It has been pointed out by learned APP that during the investigation, it has been found that accused no.1 has handed over the original passport to the complainant at her residence; the role attributed to the present applicant is that the complainant tried to contact the applicant to get the details of Pritesh Patel. Except this no other role is attributed to the present applicant.

b) Prima facie, there is no role of the applicant;

c) The applicant has no past antecedents;

d) 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.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in