Ashish Balubhai Kakadiya vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Utkarsh Thakorbhai, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

By way of the present 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.11210015210076 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City, for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

Heard learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya on behalf of the applicant who submitted that, the entire settled amount has been deposited by the applicant with the ICICI Bank, Surat.

Mr.Jainish Shah learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2-bank affirms the said fact, stated by learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya for the applicant. The Legal Officer from ICICI Bank, Surat, is present before this Court. He too submits that, the applicant has deposited entire settlement amount with ICICI bank, and as such, no further dispute remains with the applicant. Hence, bank does not have any objection if this application is allowed in light of the said settlement.

Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that, the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing him on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate therefore submitted that, considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

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.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it appears that the matter has already been settled between the parties.

Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 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 Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11210015210076 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 24.11.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week;

(g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-

It is made clear that, order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the applicant who has been granted per-arrest bail.

During the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.