Case Law Details
Jayantibhai Parsottambhai Babariya & Ors Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court decided an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with FIR C.R. No.11191011250425 of 2025 registered with the D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 314, 316(2), 316(4), 318(4), 321, 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 5 and 33(3) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
The applicants submitted that the nature of the allegations did not require custodial interrogation at that stage. They undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial, remain available whenever required, and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. It was urged that anticipatory bail be granted.
The State opposed the application, contending that the nature and gravity of the offences did not warrant grant of anticipatory bail.
The High Court observed that while exercising discretion in bail matters, it was required to act judiciously, cautiously, and consistently with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that factors relevant to consideration of bail include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and whether the accusation was made to injure or humiliate the applicant. It also observed that, at the stage of considering bail, an elaborate examination of the evidence or detailed findings on the merits should be avoided.
On a prima facie consideration of the material, the Court took into account the following aspects:
- The complainant had previously lodged a complaint before Krushnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 07.10.2023.
- After considering the allegations and various statements in that earlier complaint, the police submitted a closure report stating that no offence could be registered as the dispute related to accounts of the partnership firm, Gopinath Pride.
- The partners of the partnership firm were the complainant and accused No.1, Mithabhai.
- The allegations in the present FIR were the same as those raised in the earlier complaint before Krushnanagar Police Station.
- The income tax returns and books of account, including the profit and loss account and balance sheet, were signed by the complainant.
- The applicants had no past antecedents.
- The applicants assured the Court that they would not abscond and would remain available during the investigation and trial.
Taking these aspects into consideration, along with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, which reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, and also considering Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court allowed the application.
The Court directed that, in the event of arrest or appearance in connection with the FIR, the applicants be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 each with one surety of the like amount. The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, availability for interrogation whenever required, refraining from inducing, threatening, or influencing witnesses, not obstructing or hampering the investigation, remaining present at the concerned police station on 24.07.2026 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., furnishing and not changing their residential address without permission, not leaving India without the Court’s permission, and depositing their passports before the trial court within one week, if they possessed one.
The Court further clarified that the police or investigating agency would remain at liberty to approach the trial court under Section 483(2) of the BNSS for a direction to arrest the accused in the event of violation of any bail condition, including absconding, non-cooperation during investigation, evasion, or intimidation or inducement of witnesses.
The High Court also directed that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made while deciding the anticipatory bail application. It additionally clarified that the order granting anticipatory bail did not limit or restrict the powers or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate the allegations against the applicants. The rule was made absolute to that extent.
Cases Discussed
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (SC), (2020) 5 SCC 1
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (SC), (2011) 1 SCC 6941
- Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others (SC), (1980) 2 SCC 665
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
By way of this application 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.11191011250425 of 2025, registered with the D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 316(2), 316(4), 318(4), 321, 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2) and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (‘the BNS’ for short) and Sections 5 and 33(3) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.
3. 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.
3.1 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 this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.
4. 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.
5. 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 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, prima facie, following aspects have been taken into consideration:
a) the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before the Krushnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 07.10.2023 and after taking into consideration the allegations as well as the various statements, a closure report was submitted by the police stating that no offence can be registered in view of the fact that the dispute is between the partners with respect to the account of the partnership firm viz., Gopinath Pride;
b) the partners of the said partnership firm are the complainant and accused No.1 – Mithabhai;
c) the allegations made in the present FIR also the same which was the subject matter of the complaint that was filed before the Krushnanagar Police Station;
d) the income tax returns and the books of account i.e. profit and loss account, balance-sheet, etc., which are signed by the present complainant;
e) the applicants have no past antecedents;
f) 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.
6. 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.
7. In the result, this application is 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) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 24.07.2026 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.
7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail application.
8. 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.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in all the applications. Direct service is permitted.
Author Bio
