R/CR.A/87/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 87 of 2025 ========================================================== MUKUND SURESHBHAI KOLI & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the appellantss(s) No. 1,2 MR NILESH S BRAHMBHATT(11421) for the appellantss(s) No. 1,2 MR HASMUKH S SOLANKI(6778) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 05/05/2025 ORAL ORDER Admit. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh S. Solanki waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. [1.0] 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 04.12.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.8649 of 2024 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellantss under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11214021241164 of 2024 registered with Kosamba Police Station, Surat Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. [2.0] Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the R/CR.A/87/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 appellants have been falsely involved in the offence. Further, no offence under the Atrocity Act is made out. The allegation is that sister of complainant was abducted and thereafter marriage got registered and thereafter settlement took place and complaint is filed belatedly after a delay of six days. Today the victim i.e. sister of complainant is residing with the present appellant No.1. It is alleged that under the pretext of settlement complainant and his family members were called by the appellant No.1 at his home and present appellants hurled castiest abuses to the complainant and in this regard the complaint is filed. Further, sister of complainant i.e. victim is residing with appellant No.1 and therefore, now nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present appellants. Even otherwise, no custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, looking to the role of the appellants and nature of the allegations, the appellants are required to be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions. [3.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh Solanki appearing for the original complainant have vehemently opposed the present appeal and stated that there is no provision to entertain an appeal seeking anticipatory bail and hence, they have requested to dismiss the present appeal on the ground that considering provision of section 18 of the Atrocity Act, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail and therefore also, the present offence being serious one, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal. [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 R/CR.A/87/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 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 avoided. [5.0] Perusing the complaint and the allegations leveled in the complaint appellant No.1 got married with the sister of the complainant and today she is residing with appellant No.1 and allegation is that complainant and his family members went to the home of the appellants where they were insulted with castiest slurs but the allegations are general in nature however, there is no any allegation or no any utterance in furtherance of the act to humiliate the complainant and/or victim. 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. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj R/CR.A/87/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, allegation is prima facie not made out. [6.0] 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, I am inclined to allow the present appeal. [7.0] Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The appellants are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest/appearance in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11214021241164 of 2024 registered with Kosamba Police Station, Surat Rural on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the appellants shall; (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 07/05/2025 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 appellants; (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/87/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025 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 their 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.- [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] 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 05/05/2025 14:28:37