R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16144 of 2026 ========================================================== PRATIKKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MS RIDDHI M YADAV, ADVOCATE for MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant MR KM ANTANI APP for the Respondent - State MR JAL S UNWALLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR IG JOSHI(8726) for the Original Complainant ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 19/08/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this 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.11191008260326 of 2026, registered with the Chandkheda Police Station, District : Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (‘the BNS’ for short). 2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat. Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. 3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. As against this, the 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 and requested not to entertain this application. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the 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 R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 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 merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided. However, prima facie, following aspects have been taken into consideration: a) the complainant had received a whatsapp message from the applicant, wherein there is a mention of one false and fabricated MoU with regard to his property – land bearing New Survey No.234 (Old Survey No.143) situated at Mouje – Koteshwar, admeasuring 14569 sq.mtrs., regarding sale, wherein allegedly forged signatures of the complainant are found, where the complainant is the owner. b) learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record the Undertaking / Affidavit of the applicant dated 18.08.2026, which is signed by the applicant, the said signature is identified by the learned advocate for the applicant, which is taken on record, wherein it has been stated that the applicant has not connection and/or concern with the land in R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 question; and that the applicant has no right and interest over the land in question; and that the applicant shall not use, produce, rely upon or other wise utilize the said alleged MoU before any Government office, Government Authority or any private person in future. c) the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the applicant will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 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 & Others, 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, the Court is inclined to allow the present application. 7. 7. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount on R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 the following conditions that applicant: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) 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; (c) 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; (d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 26.08.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change 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 R/CR.MA/16144/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026 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) of the BNSS 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. 7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail application. 8. It is made clear that this 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 is granted pre-arrest bail. 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) M.H. DAVE/25 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MAHESHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL DAVE(HC00193), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/08/2026 14:58:52