R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 14820 of 2025 ========================================================== TILOKKUMAR @ DIPU JAY MATAJI MOHANDAS CHETNANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MEET A SHAH(12392) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 22/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) By way of present successive Anticipatory Bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant-original accused has prayed to grant anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at Airport Police Station, Ahmedabad City, being C.R No.11191046250037 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(3) and 331(4) of BNS. 2) Case of the prosecution is that, on 17.11.2021, the complainant who is in the business of ready-made garments, after closing the shop went to his home at night and next day morning, when he went to his shop, he found that shutter lock of his shop was changed and board was not there and therefore, the complainant called the police. Meanwhile, one person named Ajaysinh Ranjitsinh Chauhan came and told that he is the owner of shop by way of a registered sale-deed. It is also alleged by the complainant that from 17.11.2024 at 22:15 to 18.11.2024 till 11:30, some unknown persons had barged into his rented property and took away his valuables belonging to him from R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 his shop. In this regard, FIR came to be filed against unknown persons. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is innocent and has no nexus wit the alleged crime. Earlier anticipatory bail application was withdrawn. Dispute is civil in nature and co-accused is enlarged by the learned Sessions Court and therefore, present application is filed claiming parity. Though the applicant having past antecedents, he is acquitted in the offences and at present no any offence is pending. There is no direct evidence and applicant is not named in the FIR. However, merely based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused and such exclamatory statement is not admissible in the evidence. 4) Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.4564/2024), and submitted that, in the event of declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C, it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. Also relined on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7532/2025). 5) Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is not absconder. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 72 of Cr.P.C came to be issued. Hence, in absence of any material, no corroborative piece of evidence is there except the statement of the co-accused. Therefore, present applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 6) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred anticipatory bail application which came to be withdrawn and after three months, without any change in the circumstances, preferred present successive bail application. Co-accused is granted bail is not a ground to consider the bail application as the applicant is having greater role and at his instance, alleged incident took place. Presence of the applicant is noticed in CCTV footage. CDR is also recovered. Therefore, it is not a case where merely based on the statement of the co-accused, applicant is arraigned as an accused because sufficient material is collected which established the involvement of the applicant accused. Further, the applicant is having four past antecedents and warrant under Section 72 of the Code came to be issued. In view of the above and considering the role of the applicant, present application may not be entertained. 7) At the time of deciding the bail application, the Court should refrain from appreciating the evidence. However, considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the fact and specific stand taken by the applicant to extend the benefit of parity as the co-accused are released on bail. Hence, this Court has considered the material collect during the course of investigation with a view to examine the applicability of parity. The reference is required to be made in a case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, reported in AIR 2021 SC 221, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when deciding a bail application and extending the benefit of parity, the Court has to examine the exact role attributed to the accused. If the accused played a similar role, then the Court should extend the benefit of parity. Merely some words or any observation made in the order are not enough, such approach is erroneous and inappropriate for considering the benefit of parity. Page 3 of 8 R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 8) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the complainant was in possession of Shop No.75 at Sardarnagar and though civil proceedings were pending, to snatch legal and lawful possession of the complainant, on 17.11.2014, someone broken the lock and theft the goods from the shop, in which, present applicant is the king pin and at his behest, entire offence was committed. Panchnama was drawn and in CCTV footage, entire episode was captured. Statement of vehicle driver was also recorded from which it reveals that at the instance of the applicant, vehicle was called and alleged incident took place. As the applicant is on run, warrant under Section 72 of the Code came to be issued. Further, the applicant is having past criminal antecedents. 9) So far judgment of Asha Dubey (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, wherein the Apex Court has observed that there was no need of custodial interrogation. But in the present case, goods are yet to be recovered and how offence is committed is yet to be unearth and till date, the applicant has not joined investigation. In Asha Dubey (supra), the accused had cooperated with the investigation and therefore, there was no need of custodial interrogation. The Apex Court therefore came to the conclusion that there is no total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Therefore,the said authority would not avail any assistance to the applicant. 10)So far parity is concerned, role of the applicant is different and he is the main accused and at his instance, vehicle came and with the help of other accused, goods were loaded in tempo. There, there is different between the role of the applicant and co-accused. The R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 applicant has relied on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra), but the applicant has four past antecedents and earlier his bail applicant was withdrawn and without change in the circumstances, present successive bail application is preferred. 11)Thus, in order to reach to a logical conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer deserves a free hand. There is no rule that if custodial interrogation is not required then anticipatory bail is required to be granted. The custodial interrogation is one of the good grounds to reject the anticipatory bail application, but merely because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529, wherein it is observed and held as follows: “In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.” In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is therefore imperative to unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant 12)Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under: 19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 13)Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. Herein, I have gone through the material available against the accused very carefully, from which, it reveals that no complaint has been made with view to humiliating or tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, Honourable Supreme Court pleased to hold: “Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." 14)In view of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (3 Judge Bench) in case of G.R.Anand Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Reported in 2021 SCC Online 176, held as under:- “7. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.” On the same ground, with speaking order, application was R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 withdrawn. Then after waiting more than 3 months, without joining investigation, the applicant remained on run and now present successive bail application is filed without change in the circumstances. 15)In so far the statement of co-accused is concerned, it provides clues to the investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the investigating officer has to collect evidence against the person who has been named as the accused. In the light of the above provisions, there is no bar on considering the statement of co- accused for investigation purposes along with other materials. At this stage, it is relevant to note that this Court has observed in the case of Mohmed Salim abdul Rasid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2001(2) GLR 1580, in para 12, as under: “...It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case rests mainly on circumstantial evidence and police has received a clue against the present applicant from the statement of co-accused, already arrested. Irrespective of the fact that statement of co-accused to police is not admissible in evidence before the Court, but police can certainly consider that statement as a clue while interrogating him further or other persons arrested or interrogated during the course of investigation…” 16)The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 held that, “the accused has right to make successive application for grant of bail, but while entertaining a subsequent bail application, it is the duty of Court to consider the reasons and grounds, which persuade to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application”. 17)The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. Page 7 of 8 R/CR.MA/14820/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 18)This Court is of the considered view that if the present accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative investigation as the applicant is out of reach and look out notice is issued against him, having trained legal mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution. 19)In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784, Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, it is observed that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him a benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, considering the aforesaid fact, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. 20)In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court has absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, this successive application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. (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 25/08/2025 18:28:38