ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant – accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11192017250310/2025 registered with Detroj Police Station, Ahmedabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), 81 and of the Prohibition Act.

2. The learned advocate for the appellant has argued that the present applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. The complainant has filed false complainant. It is submitted that the offence is triable by JMFC. Further, he argued that he is the only bread earner in his family, and therefore, the appellant be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, Learned APP has argued that the accused in involved in the serious offence. He further submitted that the accused has played an active role in the commission of offence. Keeping in mind the offence is serious in nature, and if the accused is granted bail then he may flee away and there are possibilities that he will engage himself in similar type of crime again, and therefore the application is required to be rejected.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is involved in the offence.

5. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant, and having considered the facts of the investigation the fact remains that the present applicant is absconding and has not cooperated with the investigation. From the investigation papers, it also transpires that the present applicant was in contact via phone call with Accused No. 3, and as per the call details, which were part of the investigation, and the statement of Accused No. 3, the latter stated that for the last three months he has been dealing in the business of liquor on a commission basis, receiving the said liquor in his car and earning a commission from it. He also stated that on 02.08.2025, he received a phone call indicating that a car with English liquor had to be delivered to Gujarat, and thereafter, the said liquor was obtained from the present applicant. Therefore, prima facie, there is a role for the present applicant, in view of the fact that the applicant supplied the said liquor which was to be delivered in Gujarat.

6. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Court held that life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest of society and public. This is not a case, wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has been pleased to hold as under:-

“Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must rec