R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8930 of 2025 ========================================================== HAIDER ABBAS SAIYAD @ MUNNUBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SM DERASARI(5321) 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. [2.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of BNSS/ 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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.11191038250189 / 2025 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 308(2), 351(3) and 54 of the BNS and Sections 40 and 42 of the Money Lenders Act. [3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that he is falsely implicated in the offence. He is having no financial transactions R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 and he has not caused any mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The allegations levelled against the present applicant is that the complaint is filed at the instance of wife of deceased, wherein alleging that the accused persons lended the money on higher rate of interest and they have created pressure to recover the amount and have given threat for the dire consequences that if he fail to repay the said amount. In this regard, complaint is filed. There is no direct or indirect evidene, which suggests the instigatin or incitement on the part of the present applicant. He has not made any call or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He is ready and willing to join the investigation. Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. As per the averments made in the complaint itself, one suicide note is received from the valet of deceased, which is already seized and thereafter, which was sent to the FSL. and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not 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. [4.0] Learned APP has opposed the application on the ground that investigation is at nascent stage and he is named in the FIR alongwith the co-accused. It is submitted that the present applicant has lended the money. It is submitted that the complainant in the bail application, before the learned Sessions Judge, has stated that applicant has lended the money and he used to make demand through accused No.1. His name is R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 mentioned in the suicide Note. Prima facie, evidence is collected, which suggests the involvement of the present applicant. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application. [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) 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) applicant is having no past antecedents. (3) In the complaint, it is stated that the deceased has borrowed the money from the accused persons that he has R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 failed to repay the same and he was threatened for the dire consequences. Due to this, the alleged incident took place. (4) Perusing the suicide note, it appears that no role is attributed to the present applicant. Even alleged suicide note has already recovered and which was sent for the examination to the FSL including the phone. In absence of any proximate cause of instigation or the mens rea, the present application deserves consideration; (5) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused; (6) applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation; [6.0] Considering the decision rendered in case of Rameshbhai Batubhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 GLR 1150, on the ground of parity, the present application may be allowed. [6.1] 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 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. [7.0] In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 the cases of (i) R. Shashirekha vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025 INSC 402, (ii) Ayyub & Ors. Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 168, (iii) Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 INSC 322 and (iv) Mahendra Awase versus the State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 76, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Apex Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the Page 5 of 7 R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.” [7.0] 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.11191038250189 / 2025 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, 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 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; Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/8930/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 (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.- [8.0] 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. [9.0] 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 06/05/2025 18:26:16