R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9364 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 9200 of 2026 ================================================ BHARGAV LAKSHMANBHAI BAGODARIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================ Appearance: JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 21/04/2026 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. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat. 3. 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 R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11824005260237 of 2026, registered with Ukai Police Station, District: Tapi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not 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. 4.1 The learned advocate for the applicants further states 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 and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. 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. 6. 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 R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 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 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) the alleged incident occurred between 16.04.2021 and 14.07.2021, however, the FIR in question is registered only on 17.03.2026 and no plausible reasons is forthcoming on record for such a delay. Further, a perusal of the FIR, more particularly, column No. 8 thereof, it is mentioned that after preliminary inquiry since culpability/irregularity found, FIR is lodged; b) further, from a perusal of order dated 01.04.2023 passed by the DDO, Tapi at Vyara it appears that applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9364 of 2026 is exonerated for such technical irregularity of issuance of cheques prior to acceptance of his resignation as the work was completed and the said explanation was accepted by the DDO, Tapi at Vyara; c) the offence, prima facie appears to be technical in R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 nature; d) it is stated that the funds were utilized for the actual public works and hence, the ingredients of offence are not satisfied; e) the works in question were unanimously approved in Gram Panchayat meeting held on 29.10.2020 and it was not an unilateral decision; f) the cheques were allegedly signed after resignation on 23.03.2021 as Sarpanch, by the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9200 of 2026, however, admittedly, his resignation is accepted on 15.04.2021; 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. 7. 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. 8. 8. In the result, these applications are allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in connection R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 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) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30.04.2026 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 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. Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/9364/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 8.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail applications. 9. 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. 10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/SB/1/3 and DB/1/15tss21426 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 21/04/2026 14:03:02