KRUNALBHAI GIRISHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191022250154 of 2025 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sec. 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and whatever transaction took place as per the allegations in the complaint is by accused No.1 who happens to be the brother in law of the present applicant. Even, there was a business transaction with the deceased and even with the father also and for said transaction, he has issued the legal bills including GST and books of account also produced on record and there was purely money transaction and there is no any allegation against the applicant qua instigation and commercial transaction has been given color of criminality and applicant is falsely implicated to avoid payment of amount and hence, there being no any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant or no any monetary transaction, the applicant is required to be granted anticipatory bail. Further, the alleged incident took place on 5/2/2025 and complaint is filed belatedly after 10 days and now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Singhal vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2024) 1 SCC 714. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry for learned advocate Mr. Darshit Raval appearing for the original complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant is involved in the offence. Earlier the transaction took place with accused No.1 and applicant was in direct contact of accused No.1 and how he has played the active role in siphoning off the amount received by accused No.1 in connection of the beetle-nut is yet to be investigated. Even, the investigation is at nascent stage and the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the offence and for that five times the complainant had approached the authority and hence, the truth is yet to be unearthed and evidence is required to be collected. The deceased has specifically named the applicant in the suicide note and therefore, if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail then the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.