R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2046 of 2026 ================================================ TIPENDRA CHIMANBHAI PIYAJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================ Appearance: DIPAK N JOSHI(1689) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NILESHKUMAR H PIPALIYA(11747) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 08/05/2026 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. 11191008250788 of 2025, registered with Chandkheda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(2) and 54 of the R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the daughter of de facto complainant eloped with the present applicant out of love and entered into matrimonial relationship by performing Court marriage on 09.10.2020. It is alleged that after a period of 8-9 months, the daughter of the de facto complainant visited them on the count that her mother-in-law was taunting her for domestic works and the present applicant as well as her brother-in-law took the side of their mother and therefore, on 17.08.2021, they got separated by executing a Divorce Agreement. Thereafter, again, the daughter of the de facto complainant started living with the present applicant at his home in Live-in relationship and in the year 2023, gave birth to a baby boy out of the said relationship. However, it is alleged that the present applicant as well as other co-accused continued mental as well as physical torture and taunting which eventually led the deceased to commit by jumping from the flat and on the said facts, the FIR in question came to be registered. 4. Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. A. M. Parekh for the de facto complainant. 4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 the applicant is an innocent person and is falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submitted that the applicant and the deceased were in love and had firstly entered into Court marriage against the wish and will of the de facto complainant and hence, on demise of her daughter, who fell from the terrace, as a counterblast, present FIR has been filed. 4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that at the time of incident i.e. on 22.11.2025, the applicant was not present at the residence and was on an overseas trip and hence, there cannot be any immediate physical and/or mental torture to the deceased as alleged. 4.3 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show any specific, direct or proximate act on the part of the present applicant which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. It is stated that the allegations in the FIR are general in nature. 4.4 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted 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 himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. Page 3 of 8 R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 4.5 The learned advocate for the applicant further stated 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. 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 this application. 6. The learned advocate for the de facto complainant, while adopting the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that within a short span of the marriage, the deceased committed suicide which is solely because of the persistent physical and mental torture at the hands of the present applicant as well as the co-accused. The learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that the incident in question has occurred at the matrimonial home and nowhere else, and in the circumstances, when a person has lost her life, present being an anticipatory bail application, the same may not be entertained and it is requested to be rejected. 7. 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, R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 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 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) just before the deceased committed suicide, the applicant-accused was admittedly on an overseas trip and thus, was not present in the country; b) absence of the applicant while the incident in question occurred, significantly weakens the allegation of active instigation or "incitement" required to satisfy the ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS; c) record reveals that a Public Notice dated 28.11.2021 was issued by the de facto complainant (father of the deceased) in Sandesh Newspaper which is suggestive of the fact of a strained relationship between the deceased and her parents, wherein the father publicly disowns his own daughter on account of her love marriage with the present R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 applicant; d) the deceased resided at her parental home immediately prior to the incident (from 11.11.2025 to 21.11.2025) and committed the act within 24 hours of returning to the in- laws' house. Given the husband's absence from the country, the nexus between the husband’s conduct and the suicide is, prima facie, not established for the purpose of bail; e) in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the case does not warrant further custodial interrogation; f) 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. 8. 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. 9. 9. 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) R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 with one surety of like amount on 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 15.05.2026 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. 9.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the R/CR.MA/2046/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026 bail application. 10. 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. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. [ P. M. Raval, J. ] hiren/26tss8526 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 08/05/2026 12:32:39