R/CR.MA/7990/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7990 of 2025 ========================================================== SOLANKI ABHISHEK JITUBHAI @ JITENDRABHAI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 23/04/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, waives Rule for the complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, does not press this application qua applicant No.4. Hence, present application stands disposed of as not pressed qua applicant No.4 – Chaudhary Vikasbhai Ramjibhai 3. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11206044250245 of 2025 registered with Mehsana City A Division Police Station, Dist. Mahesana, for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2) and 191 (3) of BNS and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence. The applicants have not played any active role and not assaulted the victim. It is a case of cross FIR. Alleged incident R/CR.MA/7990/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 took place with regard to Baleno car which was taken by the complainant from Thakor Sunil on the mortgage of Rs.40,000/- and later on, the first informant had given to his friend Vikas Chaudhary (applicant No.4) for personal use. Thereafter, Vikas Chaudhary had mortgaged the said car to Vishnu Rabari for Rs.1.5 lacs. When the complainant asked applicant No.4 Vishnu Choudhary to return the car, the accused Nos.1 and 4 caught hold the first informant and accused No.5 caused knife injury to the complainant. In this regard, FIR came to be filed. Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. Whatever allegation is against accused No.4. Injured is out of danger and walked out from the hospital. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the applicants are named in FIR. Accused No.1 has used knife and his presence is noted in CCTV footage. The applicants have past antecedent. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration. 6. 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 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 R/CR.MA/7990/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 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. (1) Injured is out of danger and walked out from hospital. (2) It is a case of cross FIR. (3) Whatever allegation of inflicting injury by knife is against accused No.4. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 have not caused any serious injuries. (4) So far past antecedent is concerned, the offences were registered under sections 454, 457, 380, 323, 324, 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and merely having past antecedents is not a ground to refuse bail, especially considering that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and 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 application. 8. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicants in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11206044250245 of 2025 registered with Mehsana City A Division Police Station, Dist. Mahesana, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicants: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required; R/CR.MA/7990/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.04.2025 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 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 ofÏcer; (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 ofÏcer and the court concerned and shall not change her/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) 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 439(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.- 9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/04/2025 12:16:16