Gujarat High Court
Rahul Dal Singh Bhaydiya (Rathva) vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8989/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8989
of 2025
==========================================================
RAHUL DAL SINGH BHAYDIYA (RATHVA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VEDANT D GAIKWAD(10444) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 482 of the 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.11199021200528 /2025 registered with Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC.
[2.0] Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely roped in the offence. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that present applicant The allegations against the present applicant is that he alongwith the co- accused has theft the Pulser Bike, except this no any allegations of theft is levelled. Learned advocate for the applicant has categorically stated that no notice under Section 35(A) of BNSS, he has received and co-accused is enlarged on bail and acquitted. Thereafter, they have settled the dispute. Now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 03:46:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8989/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined necessary. 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.
[3.0] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the present application on the grounds that the applicant is involved in commission of theft. Based on these facts, the APP has requested the dismissal of the present application. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble 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 merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; (2) It appears that no notice under Section 35(A) of BNSS, he has received and co-accused is enlarged on bail and acquitted. Thereafter, they have settled the dispute. Learned advocate has also mentioned the said fact in para 6 of the memo of application;
(4) no antecedent is reported against the applicant;
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 03:46:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8989/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined (5) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused;
[5.0] This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51 and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C/under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS").
[6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11199021200528 /2025 registered with Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station, Bharuch, 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 13/05/2025 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 03:46:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8989/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined 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 till further orders;
(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) an 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 person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail;
(h) 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.-
[7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) KUMAR ALOK Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue May 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 03:46:27 IST 2025