R/CR.MA/4932/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4932 of 2025 ========================================================== VAISHALI PRADIPBHAI VAJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS PRAKRITEE JAIN(14342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/05/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent-State. [2.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210063240688 of 2024 registered with Singanpor-Dabholi Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [3.0] Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar for the original complainant. [4.0] At the outset, learned APP appearing for the respondent – R/CR.MA/4932/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 State, upon instructions, submitted that though notice under Section 35 of the BNSS came to be issued and served upon the applicant, the applicant has not remained present and applicant is having three past antecedents and even warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS came to be issued against the applicant. [5.0] Refuting the said submission, learned advocate for the applicant upon instructions has submitted that the applicant has not received the notice under Section 35 of the BNSS and her mother is not residing in India. In response to the said submission, learned advocate for the original complainant has submitted that the original complainant has filed an affidavit on oath and stated in para 9.8 of the said affidavit that notice has been duly served to the applicant and even the police had arrested accused No.2 i.e. mother of present applicant who has received the said notice and even certain documents were also recovered from the house of the applicant. Hence, question does not arise to accept the contention that applicant has not received the notice. Even otherwise warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS is also issued against the applicant. [6.0] The applicant has till date did not appear or join the investigation even pursuant to the issuance of warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS. Hence, the applicant has remained an absconder, causing the investigation regarding the present applicant to remain pending. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784; Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) R/CR.MA/4932/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730; Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282; Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, no case is made out to grant the anticipatory bail. [7.0] The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order under Section 482 of the BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. [8.0] Prima facie, involvement of the present applicant is there and considering the role attributed to the present applicant and perusing the police papers also, applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and hence, warrant under section 72 of the BNSS came to be issued however, the applicant till date has not cooperated or responded to the I.O. and/or joined the investigation. Merely because the offence is punishable with maximum punishment of 7 years and applicant is a lady accused is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant as she did not comply with the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and has not joined the investigation and even the learned advocate for the applicant has suppressed the said fact and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R/CR.MA/4932/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51, applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. [8.1] This Court is of the considered view that if the present applicant / accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative investigation as the applicant is absconding, having trained legal mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution. [9.0] In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the present applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she could potentially obstruct the ongoing investigation. Therefore, for a thorough and qualitative investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant is deemed necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application and same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. It is kept open for the applicant to raise all available contentions before the learned Magistrate. It is needless to say that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2025 18:10:53