Ankitkumar Babulal Sanghavi vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Ankitkumar Babulal Sanghavi (the applicant) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR C.R. No.11196017230434 of 2023, registered at Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City, for offences under Sections 380, 454, and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant, a goldsmith operating Nakoda Jewelers with a GST number, was not named in the FIR. The prosecution contended that muddamal (incriminating material) was recovered from the applicant's possession and that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the preliminary stage of the investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered several factors, including that the applicant was not named in the FIR, the allegation against him was limited to purchasing stolen ornaments, he had no prior criminal antecedents, and he had been in business for many years without prior illegal activities. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, availability for interrogation, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and depositing his passport. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Agency could still apply for police remand before the Magistrate, who would decide on merits. The Trial Court was cautioned not to be influenced by the Court's prima facie observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of purchasing stolen ornaments, the absence of his name in the FIR, his business standing, and lack of criminal antecedents? (Mixed question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, conducted business as a goldsmith with a GST number, and that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage. He also stated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions, including the Investigating Agency's right to seek remand. The respondent-State opposed the bail, asserting that incriminating material was recovered from the applicant, the investigation was at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation was essential. The State relied on the recovery of muddamal and the ongoing investigation.