BHAVESHBHAI BHARATBHAI VAGHELA (DISPOSED OF AS WITHDRAWN AS PER HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DTD. 20-1-26) v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2026-01-20. BHAVESHBHAI BHARATBHAI VAGHELA (DISPOSED OF AS WITHDRAWN AS PER HON'BLE COURT'S ORDER DTD. 20-1-26) v....
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 22332 of 2025 ========================================================== BHAVESHBHAI BHARATBHAI VAGHELA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR VINAY VISHEN, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 20/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Mandeep Singh Saluja for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present Application qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2 only. 2. Permission as prayed for is granted. The matter stands disposed of as withdrawn qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2 only. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. 3. This Court will proceeded with the present application qua applicant No. 3 only. 4. Rule.
Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat. 5. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11191004250822 of 2025 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR. 6 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that, the nature of allegations are such for which, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that, the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and the trial, and will not flee from justice. 7. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that, the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing him on anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate therefore submitted that, considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Vinay Vishen appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is 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. (A) As per the FIR, the only role of the applicant No. 3 was about he having once slapped the victim, however, the time and date of the said act is not mentioned. (B) There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant No. 3.
(B) The applicant is a permanent resident of Ahmedabad hence, would be available during the course of investigation and the trial. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingapp Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 S 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Sin 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 exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 11. In the event, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C. R. No. 11191004250822 of 2025 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 27. 01. 2026 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; (g) 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.
- 12. It is made clear that, 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 applicant who has been granted pre-arrest bail. 13. During the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent qua applicant No. 3. Direct service is permitted. (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) KAJAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: KAJAL KISHORBHAI NAVLAKHA(HCD0076), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 18:41:09
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.