JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-state.

2. By way of the present successive application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (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 of 2025 registered with ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 338, 339, 341(2)(4), 54 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act.

3. Though Notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) has been issued but the applicant did not join the investigation. Thereafter charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. It appears that the present applicant is cited as accused and the applicant is shown in Column No.2 of charge-sheet.

4. Mr. D.S. Gadhvi, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the applicant is a government servant, is innocent, and has neither directly nor indirectly played any role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that whatever act is alleged to have been committed was done by the computer operator. The complaint has been filed belatedly after a period of three years and no explanation for such delay has been given. It is also submitted that the applicant has no past antecedents. According to the submissions, the alleged offence, if any, was committed by one Pawan Kumar, who was working as a data entry operator through an outsourced appointment and had complete access to operate the online portal/website, including possession of the office password, through which wrong information/data came to be entered. Hence, Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions. It is submitted that the present applicant is not involved in the alleged offence and therefore, the present application may be allowed.

5. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicant is actively involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that despite issuance of notice under Section 35, the applicant neither joined nor cooperated with the investigation. It is further submitted that the offence is serious in nature and, if anticipatory bail is granted, the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. Learned APP further submits that in respect of the co-accused having a similar role and involved in an offence of similar nature, the Coordinate Bench has already rejected the application for anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the regular bail application of co-accused Pawan has been rejected and he is presently in custody. According to the prosecution, the present applicant was also working on the same table as a weapon clerk and had played an active role in forging licences and tampering with the online government data. It is further submitted that the present applicant is absconding and his name has been shown in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable at the instance of an absconder. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned APP has requested that the present application be dismissed.

6. While considering the anticipa