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. 11191066260020 of 2026, registered with Vasna Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

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) the applicant provided goods worth Rs.37,42,200/- from his firm namely M/s. Shashvat Trading Company to the brother of the de facto complainant, for which, a Purchase Order was placed by Siegro International LLP dated 18.07.2025 for 27000 kg of Turmeric;

b) it is the case of the applicant that since brother of the complainant namely Anjum Iqbal Syed was not paying the amount of goods, a sum of Rs.22,68,000/- came to be paid by the present complainant, who is the owner of the firm namely Siegro International LLP;

c) the said amount of Rs.22,68,000/- paid by the present complainant against advance for purchasing 18000 kg of dry Turmeric, is not supported by any Purchase Order coupled with the fact that the applicant has also lodged a complaint dated 04.01.2026 against three persons namely Anjum Iqbal Syed, Mohd. Asif Abdul Vahid Malik and the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section s 318(4) r/w. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS);

d) it prima facie appears to be a commercial transaction between the parties which is sought to be given a criminal colour;

e) 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 Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated t