ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.P.V Patadiya states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein – original complainant and shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama.

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

3. 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. I-11191019260112/2026, registered with Vatva GIDC Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences alleged therein.

4. 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 herself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

4.1 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.

5. 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.

6. 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) The present applicant is a lady partner having 20% share in the firm. The dispute appears to be more of a civil nature rather than criminal, more particularly when the parties had already agreed to a settlement and the civil suits as well as criminal cases have been withdrawn. There appears to be some dispute with regard to development, sharing, and sale of the property between the parties, including the complainant and the firm in which the applicant is a partner.

b) the applicant has no past 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.

7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present application.

8. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the ap