The court granted anticipatory bail based on the absence of direct evidence (no recovery of muddamal), the acquittal of main accused, and the application of established Supreme Court guidelines regarding judicial discretion in bail matters.

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.11211016240074/2024 registered with Dhangdhra Police Station, District: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 65(a), 116 B and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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 Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the name of the present applicant appears in the record only from the statement of the co-accused. There is nothing to indicate that the muddamal has been recovered from the present applicant. The FIR is of the year 2024. Both main accused named in the FIR have been acquitted by the Trial Court. She further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

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 transpires that the name of the present applicant appears in the record only from the statement of the co-accused. There is nothing to indicate that the muddamal has been recovered from the present applicant. The FIR is of the year 2024. Both main accused named in the FIR have been acquitted by the Trial Court. It further transpires that the applicant is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

b) the applicant has no past antecedents;