MOHAMMED IQRAF ABDULKARIM DANGARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicants accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11203025240054 of 2024 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, District Junagadh for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that present applicants are falsely enroped in the offence though transaction involved in the present case is purely a commercial transaction and in this regard accused No.1 has already issued a cheque and in the notice of demand issued under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act"), no reference has been made qua alleged transaction and subsequently in the FIR new story and new grounds have been urged. Further, applicant No.2 happens to be the son of applicant applicant No.1 and has nothing to do with the offence and whatever allegations leveled are against applicant No.1 and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. Even, the applicants are ready and willing to join the investigation. Co-accused is released on bail. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application of the present applicants on the ground that warrant under Sec. 70 of the CrPC came to be issued but mere issuance of warrant under Sec. 70 or 82 of the CrPC as the applicants are absconding, is not a ground to refuse anticipatory bail. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 and requested to allow the present application as the applicants are not having any past antecedent.