The court exercises discretion in granting anticipatory bail by weighing the gravity of the offence against factors such as the applicant's antecedents, flight risk, and the potential for the criminal process to be used as a tool for harassment, especially in delayed property disputes.

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. 11198068260066 of 2026, registered with Bharatnagar Police Station, District: Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 351(3), 352, 308(5), 3(5) and 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011.

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) a bare perusal of the FIR prima facie reveals that the complainant’s father had entered into a registered Sale Deed in the year 2018 with so-called relatives of the present applicant for the purpose of security against loan to the tune of Rs.45,70,000/-. However, a prima facie perusal of the Sale Deed reveals that the same was executed in the year 2018 and bears no averments to that effect;

b) the property was further sold in the year 2021, whereas, present complaint is filed in the year 2026 i.e. almost after delay of five years;

c) no civil proceedings are preferred;

d) even in the year 2021, a Public Notice was given by the complainant side which was answered by the so-called relatives of the present applicant;

e) it is also evident that, in the present complaint, the original purchasers of the property in the year 2018 i.e. Rekhaben M. Khambhaliya and Chiragbahi B. Karmatiya, alleged to have executed a Sale Deed against security, have not been made accused;

f) the role of the present app