AJAYSINH ASHWINSINH ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicants accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the F.I.R.No.11209017230028 of 2023 registered with Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offenses punishable under Ss. 395 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 323 , 504 , 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the nature of allegations made in the FIR are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. On a bare reading of the FIR, ingredients of the alleged offences qua present applicants are not made out. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. Learned advocate for the applicants further stated that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for remand. He further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicants to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants accused looking to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant. He submitted that the applicants accused are involved in the serious offence as alleged in the FIR and therefore, no lenient view would be taken in favour of the applicants accused by releasing them on anticipatory bail. He submitted that if the applicants accused are released on anticipatory bail, then they may tamper and hamper the evidences and witnesses respectively. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned APP for the respondent-State to reject present application.