IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 5773 of 2026 ========================================================== BABUBHAI RATNABHAI VANKAR & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR HARDIK MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 09/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.M. Thakkar appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would not press this application for applicant No.1 with liberty to file before the learned Sessions Court after filing of the charge-sheet. Hence, the present application stands disposed of qua the applicant No.1. 3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant No.2 on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11821052251224 of p. 2 2025 registered with Piplod Police Station, Dist. Dahod, for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85, and 54 of the BNS. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant No.2 would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant No.2, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the applicant No.2 is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 6. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant No.2, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant No.2 and the application may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- (i) The allegation in the FIR is that the accused had harassed the deceased and whereby the deceased had committed the act in question. (ii) Prima facie, while it would appear to this Court that the allegation against the present applicant No.2 being very serious i.e. the applicant had alleged that the deceased had stolen some money from the purse of applicant, which was the proximate cause, yet having regard to the fact that the applicant is stated to be looking after a mentally retarded son and and a daughter p. 3 aged 17 years and considering that applicant No.2 herself is a lady accused, aged about 52 years, this Court is inclined to consider this application. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail. 9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11821052251224 of 2025 registered with Piplod Police Station, Dist. Dahod, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the p. 4 Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; 10. The Authorities will release the applicant No.2 only if she is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 12. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant No.2 for being released on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms qua applicant No.2. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS