Court grants anticipatory bail to applicants in criminal case, emphasizing protection from victimization by state

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants (No.23 and 27) in a case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court noted discrepancies in the treatment of the applicants compared to the principal accused and emphasized the need to protect them from potential victimization by the State and investigating agency. The bail was subject to conditions such as cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with the legal process. The Court clarified that its decision should not affect the trial court proceedings and allowed direct service of the order.

---

---

Issues:
Anticipatory bail applications; Allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Alleged victimization; Red carpet treatment to principal accused; Custodial interrogation necessity; Protection against exercise of powers by the State and investigating agency.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused (No.23 and 27) in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 85(1)(b)(c)(e)(f)(g), 85(2)(g), 85(4), and 85(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The applicants argue that they are being victimized by the State authorities, who are allegedly showing favoritism towards the principal accused (accused Nos.1 to 9). The applicants claim innocence and highlight discrepancies in the treatment of the accused in the charge-sheet. They argue that the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act are being misused to coerce them.

The State vehemently opposes the bail applications, stating that the investigation is ongoing and all involved will be apprehended as necessary. The State emphasizes that the applicants should not benefit from the investigating officer's focus on the principal accused. The State refers to previous court orders related to the case to support its stance against granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court acknowledges the serious allegations against the principal accused and the lack of clarity regarding their status in the case. The Court notes that custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary based on previous court orders and the nature of the allegations. The Court observes a disparity in treatment between the applicants and the principal accused and concludes that the applicants need protection against the State's actions and the investigating agency's conduct.

The Court decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, considering that their questioning by authorities has already taken place and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary. The bail is granted on specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with the legal process. The Court clarifies that its observations should not influence the trial court's proceedings and that the conditions of a previous court order do not automatically apply to this case. The rule is made absolute, permitting direct service of the order.

In conclusion, the Court grants anticipatory bail to the applicants, emphasizing the need to protect them from potential misuse of power by the State and the investigating agency, given the circumstances of the case.

---