R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8181 of 2025 ========================================================== MAHESHBHAI HARISHANKARBHAI JANI (JAKHRA) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. BHARGAV K MEHTA(7094) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 05/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Leave to amend the cause-title of the application. 2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Rohankumar Raval waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent- State. 3. By way of preferring the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant- accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 115(1), 351(2), 351(3) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered vide I-CR No.11193050250170 of 2025 with the Rajula Police Station, Amreli. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Bhargav Mehta appearing for the applicant, at the outset, has submitted that at the time of the R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 alleged incident, both the applicant-accused and the victim- complainant were major and educated. The applicant-accused is aged about 52 years, whereas the victim-complainant is aged about 29 years. It appears from the complaint that the applicant-accused and the victim-complainant came into contact with each other during a tour programme of North India, where the victim- complainant was involved in a catering business. It further appears from the materials on record that they remained in constant touch with each other, personally as well as on mobile phone, and were also chatting on whatsapp. It is submitted that the victim- complainant and the applicant-convict had developed physical sexual relationship with each other consensually. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta has submitted that the applicant- accused has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant-accused had given Rs.3,25,000=00 to the victim-complaint, and out of the said amount, the victim could only repay Rs.25,000=00, therefore, with a view to avoid further payment of the remaining amount, she lodged a false complaint of rape against the present applicant-accused. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta has further submitted that the applicant is a local resident of Amreli District and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Mr.Mehta has, therefore, submitted that considering the nature of the offence the application R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 preferred by the present applicant may be allowed and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 7. On the other hand, learned APP Mr.Rohankumar Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 8. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant-accused developed physical relations with the victim-complainant under the guise of making her a singer and thereby committed rape on her several times at different places and also threatened to kill her and her entire family. It is further alleged that the applicant-accused had also taken the obscene photographs and video-clips of the victim- complainant into his mobile-phone and was threatening the victim- complainant to make it viral, and even once, he had uploaded the obscene photographs and video-clip of the victim-complainant on his whatsapp status. Therefore, the victim had decided to commit suicide and wrote a suicide note, however, the suicide note came to the knowledge of the mother of the victim and, therefore, the victim was saved from committing suicide. 9. Considering the gravamen and seriousness of the offence, this Court has carefully scaled the entire materials on record and also gone through the original investigation papers as well as taken into R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 consideration the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the present applicant-accused. 10. It appears that during the investigation, the victim has produced her mobile-phone to the Investigating Officer, wherein some four to five call recordings are saved which have been recovered and copied in the pen-drive by way of a panchnama, and considering the transcript recorded in the panchnama, it prima facie appears that on the basis of the said photographs and video-clips, the victim was being exploited by the present applicant-accused and she was compelled to meet the applicant for ulterior motive. It further prima facie appears that the evidence on record corroborates with the say of the complainant and it clearly suggests the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. It also appears from the record that after registration of the FIR, the applicant-accused has absconded and is not responding to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, considering the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as considering the materials on record, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the applicant-accused is not required. 11. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like the one on hand are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are frivolous. So far as the case on hand is concerned, no frivolity appears in the case of the prosecution. Merely because the investigating agency has not taken steps to arrest the applicant-accused by itself is not enough to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant-accused, more particularly, when the allegations are serious in nature. Further, it prima facie appears from the conduct of the applicant- accused that he might use the bail to obstruct the investigation. It is needless to mention that as per the settled legal position, while considering the anticipatory bail application, the court must balance the accused's right to personal liberty with the need for a fair and effective investigation. The Apex Court, in catena of decisions, has made it clear that while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon the court to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation. 12. In the aforesaid context, I may refer with profit to a pronouncement in Pratibha Manchanda vs. State Of Haryana, reported in 2023 (8) SCC 181, wherein the Supreme Court expressed thus: “17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 this Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 following conclusion: “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused 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; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. xxx xxx xxx" 18. In Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731 the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case. 19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 13. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy, reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, the Supreme Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 14. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused, but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 of the Code is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercise only in appropriate and fit cases. This privilege should be extended only in exceptional cases. It is a judicial discretion conferred upon the court and it is to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 15. Considering the manner and method in which the offence was planned and executed/committed and also considering the fact that the investigation is at the crucial stage and a thorough investigation is required to be conducted regarding the involvement of the applicant-accused in the alleged offence, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation is not needed. The applicant-accused is absconding and not even responding to the Investigating Officer to remain present for investigation. This Court is mindful of the fact that day-in and day-out, such type of offences are being committed and women are being targeted and victimized. Considering the aforesaid as well as considering the facts of the present case, it appears that if the Investigating Officer is not afforded an R/CR.MA/8181/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/06/2025 opportunity to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, more particularly, when the materials on record clearly suggest prima facie case against the applicant-accused and when the applicant- accused is not cooperating in the investigation, it would create serious prejudice for the investigation and the prosecution as well. 16. For the foregoing reasons, without discussing the evidence in details, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present application deserves to be and the same is hereby rejected. It goes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of the final opinion in the main matter. 17. It is needless to clarify that the guilt or the innocence of the applicant-accused shall be decided by the trial court strictly on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both the prosecution as well as the defence during the course of the trial. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J) prk Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/06/2025 11:33:36