In commercial disputes where a significant part of the payment has been made, custodial interrogation is generally not required, making the applicant eligible for anticipatory bail provided they have no significant criminal antecedents and are not a flight risk.

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. 11210060260018/2026, registered with Varachha Police Station, District: Surat for the offences alleged therein.

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) On reading of the FIR, it transpires that during the period from 05.08.2024 to 10.06.2025, goods worth approximately ₹3 crore were purchased, out of which an amount of ₹2.30 crore has already been paid. The outstanding amount, as per the FIR, is to the tune of ₹60,00,000/-. Prima facie, the case appears to be arising out of commercial transactions. However, if the intention of the applicant had been not to pay from the very beginning, such a substantial amount of ₹2.30 crore would not have been paid. Thus, it appears that a major part of the amount has already been paid and only ₹60 lakh remains outstanding. In these circumstances, this Court does not find that the alleged offence attracts provisions requiring custodial interrogation.

b) The applicant has one FIR arising out of a commercial/property dispute and has no other criminal antecedents.

c) 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 Satlingapp