In an application filed before the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319, 336(2), 340, 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice P.M. Raval denied grant of anticipatory bail, noting that custodial interrogation was imperative.
The applicant submitted that she had been falsely implicated in the present case with malicious intention and that she had no knowledge of the alleged offence. It was also asserted that the present applicant was in her last semester of LL.B. and was working as a junior intern. She pleaded that neither had she appeared before any court of law, nor presented her vakalatnama.
The applicant submitted that money was demanded by accused 1, and that no role had been attributed to her since the complainant gave Rs. 3,27,000/- to abuse the process of law and get benefit from the legal consequences.
The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the applicant’s belongings were found during the investigation and that, in totality, a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- had been siphoned by the applicant and the other accused persons.
The Court noted that a visiting card reflecting the applicant’s name as an advocate was recovered even though she was yet to complete her degree. It was also noted that a card alleged to have been issued in her name by the Bar Council of Gujarat, a register containing case details, a board reflecting the applicant to be an advocate of the Supreme Court, and police station seals, as well as seals to utilize for notary, had also been recovered.
It was stated that a noble profession like advocacy cannot be tarnished in such a manner, and that a custodial investigation was required to dig into the roots of the alleged offense as well as the involvement of other persons, and to trace out the victims, out of whom Rs. 80,00,000/- had been siphoned. Thus, referring to Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 665, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Finding no exceptional ground to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS, the Court rejected the application. The applicant requested that the present order be stayed so that it could be challenged before the Supreme Court, but this request was also rejected.
Appearances:
For Applicants – Mr. Bakul S. Panchal, Ms. Mansi S. Panchal
For Respondent – Mr. Chintan Dave (APP)
