Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases arising from commercial transactions where there is no evidence of initial intent to cheat, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.

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. 11210023251390 of 2025, registered with Khatodara Police Station, District: Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

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) present applicant is a broker who had introduced original accused Nos. 1 to 3;

b) as per the allegation in the FIR, present applicant had accepted the responsibility that payments by original accused Nos. 1 to 3 will be made in time;

c) it transpires that the transactions were commercial between the complainant and the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 which were from 03.05.2022 to 24.06.2022 to the tune of Rs.74,48,835.03 out of which, Rs.27,04,715.03 was paid. Thus, it cannot be said that from the beginning, the applicant had intention of cheating;

d) the transactions are of 2022 whereas, the FIR is filed in 2025 and the reason for lodging the FIR late is to the effect that the complainant had preferred an application being CAPC Application No. 3 of 2025 dated 25.01.2025 before the Khatodara Police Station. Be that as it may, it clearly transpires to be a commercial transaction and the cheques issued by the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have also been bounced;

e) a Commercial Civil Suit No. 514 of 2023