ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

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. 11214032260174 of 2026, registered with Mandvi Police Station, District: Surat (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 127(2), 108 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are all the accused named in the FIR, in connivance with each other, kidnapped deceased Jenil, who happens to be the son of the de facto complainant on the count that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in relationship with each other and original accused No. 4, who was in relationship with deceased Jenil, had their photographs in her mobile, which deceased Jenil allegedly took away from her mobile without her knowledge and thereafter, called the original accused No. 3 with whom, original accused No. 2 got married, and sent him the said photographs. The deceased allegedly also asked for money from original accused No. 3. Hence, the accused persons allegedly kidnapped the deceased, tortured and forced to confess and apologize. They also shot such a video of the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused, called the deceased at the place of incident, they talked and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into a canal. Accordingly, for the alleged offence, FIR in question came to be registered.

4. Heard, Mr. Kishan Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent lady and falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submitted that no overt act has been committed by the present applicant nor any specific role attributed to her in the commission of crime in question.

4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that there is no mens rea at all for commission of such a crime. Further, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the applicant instigated and/or created such a situation so as to force the deceased to take away his life.

4.3 The learned advocate for the applicant further submit that the applicant neither had kidnapped the deceased nor confined him illegally. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the de facto complainant himself is a hearsay witness and he has no personal knowledge about the incident.

4.4 The learned advocate for the applicant submits that even otherwise 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.

4.5 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.

4.6 In support of his arguments, the learned advocate for the applicant relied upon following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court:

i) Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801;

ii) Kumar alias Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 19 SCC 308;

iii) Mariano Anto Bruno and Another v. Inspector of Police, (2023) 15 SCC 560;

iv) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajashthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144;

v) Shabbir Hussai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2021) 17 SCC 807;

vi) Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200;

vii) Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707;

viii) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 S