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 application as G/725/CP/Arji/Manjuri-273-2026 with Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad dated 23.03.2026.

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) That the Applicant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.05.2026 which was notarized (not registered). Pursuant to which, the complainant issued a legal notice to the present Applicant No. 1 dated 23.02.2026, which was duly replied to by the Applicant through his Advocate dated 28.02.2026.

b) It transpires that the Applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs, against which, as a way of security, an agreement to sell was entered into by the applicant with the complainant. Pursuant thereto, it transpires that the complainant preferred an application being No. G/725/CP/Arji/Manjuri-273-2026 with the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad dated 23.03.2026; however, no FIR has yet been lodged. If at all the factum of the Applicant having handed over the huge amount of Rs. One crore as a loan is considered, even then the factum of the Applicant having entered into an agreement to sell, though unregistered, would certainly give rise to a commercial/ civil dispute. Prima facie, it does appear that the complainant is trying to give criminal colour to such transaction.

c) the applicant has no past antecedents;

d) 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 the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri G