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. 11210065260310 of 2026, registered with the Utran Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

3. Learned senior advocte Mr.Jal Unwala for learned advocate Mr.Pravin Gondaliya 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. Learned advocate for the original complainant has strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail in view of the fact that the investigation is at a preliminary stage. The present applicant-accused have knowingly signed the said forged Will as a witness and submitted a false affidavit before Registrar’s Office while getting the said Will registered and thereby prepared forged document and used the said forged document as genuine.

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) specific role attributed to the present applicant is that the applicant was a witness to the Will that is stated to be a forged Will which does not contain the signature and thumb impression of the deceased Jayeshbhai Lakhani. The fact remains that the said Will is dated 11.6.2021 and thereafter, the testator of the Will has expired on 20.12.2021; thereafter the present complainant along with the present accused have gone to the sub-registrar’s office to get the same registered and while getting the same registered, there is an affidavit filed by the complainant herself wherein she has stated that the said Will has been executed by the deceased Jayeshbhai Lakhani and at the time of executing the said Will, the deceased Jayeshbhai was in a good mental and physical condition to execute the said Will. The said fact was also informed by the witness. The role of the present applicant is being a witness to the said Will which was thereafter registered by the complainant herself