Anticipatory bail may be denied in serious offenses involving forgery of official documents and public interest, especially where prima facie evidence suggests the applicant's involvement and a need for custodial interrogation exists to ensure a qualitative investigation.

ORAL ORDER

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.5/ 2025 registered with A.T.S. Police Station, Ahmedabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 338, 339, 341(2)(4), 54 and 61 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act.

2. The Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly argued that the applicant in compliance with the notice dated 17.12.2025, which has been issued by the Investigating OfÏcer, remained present before the Investigating OfÏcer at A.T.S. Ahmedabad on 21.01.2026, and has fully cooperated with the investigation and the investigating ofÏcer issued another notice directing the applicant to remain present on 28.01.2026, for further investigation and after returning to his native place at Etah, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant's health deteriorated due to high blood pressure and diabetes and the applicant was medically advised to take rest and therefore, he was unable to remain present on 28.01.2026 and the applicant, through written communication dated 27.01.2026, informed the investigating ofÏcer about his inability to attend due to ill health and despite the same, even before the scheduled date of inquiry, the investigating agency filed a supplementary charge-sheet dated 22.01.2026 before the Trial Court and showed the applicant as an absconding accused in column no.12 of the charge-sheet and thereafter the applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected on 03.04.2026. The learned advocate for the applicant has argued that the allegations made in the FIR are false and baseless, the accused no.18-Pavankumar Gangaprasad Lodhi was appointed as an outsourced computer operator and was entrusted with handling the online portal and was in possession of all login credentials including user-id, password and system access required for processing and uploading license related data and that the applicant had no control over the said online portal and all the entries were made electronically by the said accused no.18 and the false entries, if any, were made by accused no.18 using the ofÏcial credentials available with him and it is accused no.18 in connivance with accused No. 17 manipulated and uploaded false details on the online portal for the issuance of forged armed licenses and the same is without the knowledge, consent or involvement of the present applicant and it has been argued that the applicant neither had custody of the login credentials nor had any role in making online entries and therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the said Act, which was committed by the main accused nos.17 and 18 and in view of the medical condition and the fact that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak has mainly argued that prima facie the present applicant, who is the senior clerk at Etah Collector OfÏce and at the relevant time i.e. from 18.09.2019 to 14.09.2021, he was a Senior Clerk at Etah Collector OfÏce. He was a clerk in the Fire Arms Department and on 13.10.2020, by forging the details of the valid Arms License holder Dineshbhai Rajaram had edited the same through computer operator accused no.18, the details of the arms, photo, area validity and