R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7604 of 2026 ================================================ PRIYANSHIKUMARI PRADIPBHAI CHAUDHARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================ Appearance: MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS TRISHLA B SHETH(11488) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 05/05/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat. 2. 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. 11214032260174 of 2026, registered with Mandvi Police Station, District: Surat (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 127(2), 108 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are all the accused named in the FIR, in connivance with each other, kidnapped deceased Jenil, who happens to be the son of the de facto complainant on the count that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in relationship with each other and original accused No. 4, who was in relationship with deceased Jenil, had their photographs in her mobile, which deceased Jenil allegedly took away from her mobile without her knowledge and thereafter, called the original accused No. 3 with whom, original accused No. 2 got married, and sent him the said photographs. The deceased allegedly also asked for money from original accused No. 3. Hence, the accused persons allegedly kidnapped the deceased, tortured and forced to confess and apologize. They also shot such a video of the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused, called the deceased at the place of incident, they talked and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into a canal. Accordingly, for the alleged offence, FIR in question came to be registered. 4. Heard, Mr. Kishan Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent lady and falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submitted that no overt act has been committed by the present applicant nor any specific role attributed to her in the R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 commission of crime in question. 4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that there is no mens rea at all for commission of such a crime. Further, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the applicant instigated and/or created such a situation so as to force the deceased to take away his life. 4.3 The learned advocate for the applicant further submit that the applicant neither had kidnapped the deceased nor confined him illegally. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the de facto complainant himself is a hearsay witness and he has no personal knowledge about the incident. 4.4 The learned advocate for the applicant submits that even otherwise the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep herself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. 4.5 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. Page 3 of 12 R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 4.6 In support of his arguments, the learned advocate for the applicant relied upon following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court: i) Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801; ii) Kumar alias Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 19 SCC 308; iii) Mariano Anto Bruno and Another v. Inspector of Police, (2023) 15 SCC 560; iv) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajashthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144; v) Shabbir Hussai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2021) 17 SCC 807; vi) Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200; vii) Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; viii) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; ix) Mali Vasantkumar Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1322; x) Rasilaba Bharatsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 2752; xi) Kamruddin Samsuddin Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 1526; xii) Poonam Anshul Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 1556. Page 4 of 12 R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 5. Conversely, 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. 5.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused keeping grudge of the fact that the deceased sending photographs of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were in relationship, to the original accused No. 3 with whom, the original accused No. 2 married later, on Instagram, kidnapped the deceased, tortured him and firstly made him to apologize for such an act and thereafter, they gathered at the place of incident and after some time, the deceased commits suicide. It is further submitted that the deceased had taken those photographs from the mobile phone of the present applicant allegedly, without her knowledge and thereafter, stated to have sent to the original accused No. 3 and allegedly, also demanded money. Thus, all the accused had a reason behind crime in question. Further, presence of the accused at the place of incident is undisputed. 5.2 Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, so far as present applicant is concerned, her conduct speak volumes about the crime inasmuch as, as per her version only, despite she knew that the deceased jumped into the canal, she left the place, though she was in relationship with the deceased for long. Further, after the incident, she deleted all the call details as R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 well as the messages from her mobile. Making above submissions, investigation is going on and is at a crucial stage and accordingly, it is urged that this being an anticipatory bail application, the same may not be entertained. 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 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 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) unlike the "normal wear and tear of life" described in referred judgments, the prosecution details a pre-planned kidnapping and forced apology video. The presence of the R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 applicant at the canal, the final location before suicide, suggests a continuous chain of harassment rather than a remote or accidental provocation; b) admittedly, soon after the accused and the deceased met and while the applicant was leaving the place of incident, deceased committed suicide; c) in the present case, the motive is explicitly established (retaliation for the leaked Instagram photos). Furthermore, the applicant’s action of deleting call logs and messages and the factum of main accused asking the present applicant to deny her presence at the scene of offfence creates a prima facie case of "guilty mind", though the present applicant has also given Accidental Death report suggesting her presence; d) the applicant’s conduct here transcends a mere relationship. Her hostile behaviour at the scene—leaving a long-term partner after deceased jumped into a canal without seeking immediate physical help, provides a factual basis for "instigation by conduct" that distinguishes her act from the cited cases. What transpired between the deceased, main accused and the present applicant can only be elicited during custodial interrogation; e) the FIR was registered promptly by the complainant R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 who is the father of the deceased though based on the facts narrated by the main accused, however, the "Last Seen" theory is firmly established by the applicant's own presence. The lack of a suicide note does not absolve the applicant when the physical evidence (the deleted messages and the kidnapping narrative) points toward a high degree of custodial necessity. The discrepancies in narration of factual aspect by the present applicant requires custodial interrogation; f) so far as ingredients of offence of abetment are concerned, from the events prior to occurrence of incident of suicide by the deceased, speak otherwise for the reason that, the deceased allegedly was kidnapped, he was kept hostage, made to apologize for sending the photographs of accused Nos. 1 and 2, which were taken by deceased allegedly without knowledge of the present applicant from her mobile phone, to the accused No. 3 and also for asking for money therefor and thus, all the accused, prima facie appear to have motive and mens rea for the crime in question; g) the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) in para 23, has observed as under: “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.” (emphasis supplied) h) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus: “9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid down by the apex court and considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after considering the observations made by the learned sessions judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected.” (emphasis supplied) i) so far as decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant, as referred at serial Nos. (i) to (viii) in paragraph 4.6, are concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the same. Nonetheless, a perusal of the same reveals that they all are passed after conviction upon full-fledged trial and hence, the same are of no help to the applicant herein inasmuch as, this is an R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 anticipatory bail application, wherein, investigation is still going on and facts and circumstances of the case suggest necessity of custodial interrogation to churn out the truth; j) so far as decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant, as referred at serial Nos. (ix) to (xii) in paragraph 4.6, are concerned which are of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court and persuasive in nature, the same are, also not applicable to the case on hand, for the reason that, so far as decision in Mali Vasantkumar Ramjibhai (supra) is concerned, the Court upon going through the papers on record, came to a specific conclusion that there is no mens rea. Further, the Court also noted that there was nothing to recover or discover. However, in the instant case, as observed earlier, there prima facie appears to be motive and mens rea and the investigation is underway and at a crucial stage. So far as decision in Rasilaba Bharatsinh Jadeja (supra) is concerned, money was lent to the deceased through her husband and considering the said aspect, the Court considered the anticipatory bail application. So far as decision in Kamruddin Samsuddin Saiyed (supra) is concerned, the applicant stated to have illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, but for want of any overt act, the Court disbelieved and considered anticipatory bail application. In the instant case, the presence of the applicant at the place of incident is undisputed; further, as said earlier, the conduct of R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 the applicant in the entire episode is doubtful and hence, the said decision is of no help to the applicant. So far as decision in Poonam Anshul Singh (supra) is concerned, the facts are totally different. In the said case, FIR was filed after a delay of three months. Further there was no allegation against the applicant therein in the suicide note. However, in the case on hand, as referred to herein above, the presence of the applicant at the place of incident; relations between the deceased and the applicant; the applicant was lastly with the deceased together with the co-accused etc.; all these facts have been crystallized. Accordingly, that decision also would of no avail to the applicant herein. k) Given the gravity of the kidnapping and the potential destruction of digital evidence (as seen in the deleted logs), granting bail based on the cited judgments which are not applicable to the facts of the case would "defeat the cause of public justice" and "paralyse the investigation" while it is still at a nascent stage of discovery. 7. For the forgoing reasons and discussion, in the considered opinion of the Court, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected, accordingly. Rule is discharged. 7.1 It goes without saying that the trial Court shall not be R/CR.MA/7604/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026 influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court which are solely made for the purpose of dealing the present application. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/SB/1/9tss5526 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 05/05/2026 11:13:42