R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8950 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 9117 of 2026 ================================================ MEGHARAJBHAI BHEMABHAI CHAUDHARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================ Appearance: MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. VISHWA M SHAH(15460) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 27/04/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. As both the matters arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. By way of these applications 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. 11195051260290 of 2026, registered with Tharad Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(3), 189(3), 191(2), R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 191(3), 190, 195(1), 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 125, 121(1), 132, 126(2), 61(2), and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. Gravamen of the complaint is that on 18.03.2026 when the complaint was on duty as ASI, a mob of around 800-1000 people belonging a particular community, with a view to protest inter- cast marriage, gathered, and in furtherance of their common intention, by forming unlawful assembly, blocked the highway and attacked the police personnel who were trying the calm down and scatter the mob; one of the persons named Kiran Chaudhary, who was driving a Scorpio car, also tried to run over the car on the police staff; the mob also allegedly assaulted the police personnel with iron pipes they possessed; they also pelted stones and thereby, injured several police witnesses and also damaged public property worth approximately more than Rs.1 lakh and thereby, committed the alleged offence, for which, FIR in question came to be registered. 4. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwalla, appearing with Mr. D. M. Devnani, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026 and learned advocate Mr. P. S. Chaudhary for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026 would submit that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. 4.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) would further submit that the applicant was not at all present at the time and place of incident and he was at somewhere else i.e. at Sagat Mata temple, situated at at Runi Village and, thus, he claimed alibi. He submits that the presence of the applicant (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) can be very well established from the CCTV footage and photographs at the said location i.e. Sagat Mata temple at Runi Village, which are produced at Annexure ‘B’ to the application. 4.3 The learned senior advocate for the applicant (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) further submitted that the applicant attended a community meeting at Runi Village, for which, permission was also availed by one Jagmalbhai Karshanbhai Chaudhary, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘C’ to Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026. He submitted that, thereat, the applicant neither deliver any inflammatory speech nor instigate the crowd nor posted any provocative statements or videos on social media. It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate that even otherwise no specific accusation is there against the present applicant to the effect either he had used a specific weapon and/or caused injury R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 to any of the witnesses. Accordingly, it is urged that his application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) may be considered favourably and anticipatory bail may be granted to him. 5. So far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026 is concerned, the learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a lady and a social worker, working for women empowerment. He submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the FIR in question is politically motivated. The learned advocate for the applicant (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026) would further submit that the applicant had not at all gone to Unn Village where the alleged incident took place and from the place of meeting i.e. Runi Village, she directly went to her village. It is submitted that taking advantage of clash between two communities, where there are more numbers of police officers of other community, political gain is sought for by some political persons. It is submitted that, though the applicant is named in the FIR, no role is attributed to her. Accordingly, it is urged that applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. The learned advocates for the applicants further state that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, it is urged that these applications may be allowed R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. 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 these applications. It stated that the applicants herein were very much present at the meeting which took place at Village Runi and they instigated the mob which led to occurrence of incident in question at Village Unn where, a mob indulged into crime in question and caused injury to many police personnel as well as damaged the public property worth more than Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that the applicants tried to create animosity between two communities and thereby, created a serious law and order situation and accordingly, it is requested that these being anticipatory bail applications, the same may not be considered at this crucial stage and the same may rejected. 8. 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 gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 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, following aspects have been taken into consideration: a) as per FIR itself, a mob of 800-1000 people had gathered at the time when incident had occurred and in the circumstance, identification of present applicants appears to be difficult; b) from the documents on record, presence of the applicants at the place of offence prima facie appears to be not proved. On the contrary, it appears from the photographs produced on record that the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026 was present at Village Runi at Sagat Mata temple which is approximately 60 km away from the place of incident i.e. Unn Village; c) the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026, who stated to be a social worker, also not at all gone at the place where the incident occurred i.e. Unn Village and after conclusion of community meeting, she went to her home village; d) prima facie it appears that no specific role attributed to the present applicants save and except the bare statement that they instigated the mob. Even, there is nothing to suggest prima facie that the present applicants themselves or at their instance, anyone had inflicted any injuries to the R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 police witnesses and also hindered in their official duty; e) prima facie, the incident appears to be a matter of clash between two communities; f) so far as offence punishable under Section 190 of the BNS is concerned, firstly, the prosecution has to establish shared common object between the accused and they were part of the unlawful assembly and secondly, to prove that the accused were aware of the offences, likely to be committed, are to achieve the said common object. In the instant case, both the ingredients, are prima facie appear to be not satisfied inasmuch as, presence of the applicants at the place of incident itself appears to be not proved and thus, no specific role and/or act is attributed to the present applicants except bare statement of instigation etc.; g) the applicants stated to have no past antecedents; h) the learned advocate for the applicants has assured that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial. 9. 9. 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 applications. Page 7 of 9 R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 10. In the result, these applications are allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount each on the following conditions that applicants: (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) applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026 shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 04.05.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. So far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026, she shall appear before the investigation officer as and when called for; (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 before the trial Court within a week; (g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to R/CR.MA/8950/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 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. 10.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail applications. 11. 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 applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/DB/1/21-22tss27426 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/04/2026 11:11:36