R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6720 of 2025 ========================================================== MANSINHBHAI BIJOLBHAI CHAUDHARY & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 21/04/2025 ORAL ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11195044250005 of 2025 registered with Shihori Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 140(3), 310(2), 333, 127(2), 60, 115(2), 351(3) and 324(4) of the BNS read with Section 135(1) of the GP Act. [2.0] It is reported that during the pendency of this application, applicant No.1 has been arrested by the police. Therefore, the learned advocate for the applicant does not press this application qua applicant No.1. Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 Hence, the present application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant No.1. Rule is hereby discharged qua applicant No.1. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, this application is taken up for final disposal only qua applicant No.2. [2.0] Learned advocate for the applicants submits that Applicant No.2 has no involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that Applicant No.2 is in no way connected with the administration of the complainant. He was not present at the scene where a mob of 25–30 individuals caused the damage. There are no specific allegations against Applicant No.2, nor is there any overt act attributed to him, except for a general allegation regarding the administration of a threat. Applicant No.2 has no past criminal antecedents. He is ready and willing to join the investigation. He has submitted an undertaking, which is taken on record, wherein stating that he will not enter the premises of the temple as narrated in the Complaint, and further, that he shall not interfere in any manner with the management activities of the Temple. Besides, the applicant No.2 is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant No.2 may be granted anticipatory bail. [3.0] Learned APP has opposed the application on the ground that the present applicant No.2 is named in the FIR. It is alleged R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 that he was present at the scene and that he administered threats while hatching a criminal conspiracy to take over possession of the shrine (Math) and temple. It is further alleged that the applicant No.2, along with others, assaulted and threatened the complainant. They are also accused of concocting a false story and forcibly obtaining a written statement in an attempt to cover up the issue. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration. [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) The applicant arraigned as an accused in aid of sections R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 189(2), 189(4) etc. of the BNS. (2) there is no any overt-act on the part of the present applicant No.2; (3) The present applicant No.2 arrived at spot and the allegations against the present applicant No.2 is that he threatened the complainant; (4) applicant No.2 has no past antecedent; (5) Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant No.2; (6) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty; (7) similarly situated co-accused is either released by the learned Sessions Court or by this Court; (8) It appears that present applicant No.2 has filed an undertaking, which is taken on record, wherein stating that he will not enter the premises of the temple as narrated in the Complaint, and further, that he shall not interfere in any manner with the management activities of the Temple and in this regard, he shall also file undertaking before the learned Magistrate as well as learned Trial Court; [5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application. [6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant No.2 in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11195044250005 of 2025 registered with Shihori Police Station, Banaskantha, the applicant No.2 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 No.2: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.04.2025 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 No.2; (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 ofÏcer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating ofÏcer and the court concerned and shall not change her/his residence till Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/6720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 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.- (i) He shall also file undertaking before the learned Magistrate as well as learned Trial Court that he will not enter into the premises of the temple as narrated in the Complaint, and further, that he shall not interfere in any manner; [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 No.2 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 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ALOK KUMAR(HC01091), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/04/2025 18:31:05