R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1157 of 2025 ========================================================== ANKITA D/O BIPINBHAI METHA W/O JAYKUMAR RAJENDRAKUMAR NAYAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 07/05/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [2.0] Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”) challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, at Tharad, District Banaskantha in Criminal Misc. Application No.134 of 2025 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195050250225 of 2025 registered with Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 351(3), 61(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [for short “Atrocities Act”). Page 1 of 6 R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 [3.0] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a lady and has been falsely involved in the offence. Further, no offence under the Atrocity Act is made out and present appellant was serving as Principal of the Government Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Pathamda and she has not played any direct or indirect role due to which the deceased committed suicide. The appellant is accused No.3. The allegation is that son of the complainant suicide due to an inquiry which is pending and he is innocent in said inquiry and though suicide note does mention name of the present appellant, no overt act and/or any active participation of the present appellant is attributed to the present appellant. The inquiry in question is in connection with one dummy student who appeared in the examination and has uploaded the photograph of dummy candidate using the password and ID of the appellant however, no direct role is attributed to the present appellant and whatever allegation of making call is against the husband of the appellant. Complaint is registered against six persons along with DEO and even the District Education Officer is protected in quashing proceeding. As son of the complainant serving as a teacher in the school, preliminary inquiry was conducted and was suspended. But prior to suspension, the deceased has committed suicide and has uploaded whats app status, wherein he had stated that, he is innocent but Ganeshbhai Laljibhai and Ganpatbhai have hatched conspiracy against him and based on the same, the appellant has been arraigned as an accused. The appellant has not played any role qua abetment or instigation to the deceased. No active participation of the appellant is there. Except registration of one complaint for the same incident, he has no any past antecedent. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the appellant is available during the R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail [4.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate for the complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that, appellant is named in the FIR. Role and allegation of the appellant clearly spells out in the complaint and suicide note. From the whats up status, role of the appellant is clearly revealed. The appellant is conspirator. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, appeal does not deserve any consideration. [5.0] 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) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 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 R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 avoided. [6.0] Present appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Atrocities Act. Learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the application considering the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Having considered the fact that the appellant is a lady and wife of accused No.4 and in aid of section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act, present appellant is arraigned as an accused however, merely because the complainant belongs to scheduled caste, provision of section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act has been invoked however, there is no any allegation or no any utterance in furtherance of the act to humiliate the complainant and/or the deceased. Even considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhan reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 as well as in the case of Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 2249, there is no bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act on anticipatory bail unless prima facie offence is made out. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, as the allegation is prima facie not made out, present appeal deserves consideration. [7.0] I have also considered 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 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, and also the fact that present appellant is the Principal of Government R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Pathamda and the allegation is that alongwith other staff members including Ganesh who is serving as a Teacher hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate the deceased in case of dummy candidate and threatened the deceased to make confession as he has uploaded the form of dummy candidate using the password and ID of the appellant and departmental proceeding being initiated by the authority due to which the deceased committed suicide. Except this, there is no any direct or indirect role of instigation or abetment qua the present appellant and there is not an iota of evidence of mens rea and in absence of any positive act on the part of the appellant and proximate cause defined under section 45(B) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, present appeal deserves consideration. [8.0] Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest/appearance in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195050250225 of 2025 registered with Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the appellant shall; (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself 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 appellant; (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 R/CR.A/1157/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 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 officer and the court concerned and shall not change her 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(3) of the BNSS 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.- [9.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. [10.0] Appeal is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (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 07/05/2025 14:21:58