Yogesh @ Anand Dhirendra Shribikau ... vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Yogesh @ Anand Dhirendra Shribikau ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.MA/20137/2025                                ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                                       CHARGESHEET) NO. 20137 of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                 YOGESH @ ANAND DHIRENDRA SHRIBIKAU SHUKLA
                                                   Versus
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR. DHRUVIN U MEHTA(9993) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                                        Date : 03/10/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-46 of 2000 registered with Vapi Town Police Station, Valsad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned appearing for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 25.05.2025 for an offence which was registered in the year 2000. He further submitted that the other co-accused had been prosecuted and the learned Sessions Court vide Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2001 had passed an order of acquittal of those co-accused. He further submitted that in the trial conducted against the other co-accused, none of the witnesses of prosecution case have supported the case of the prosecution which has resulted into the acquittal of the other co-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20137/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined accused. He further submitted that it is the case of prosecution against the applicant that the applicant had absconded after the registration of the present FIR, however, the applicant was very much present in Valsad district itself and had not absconded. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The present offence came to be registered in the year 2000 whereas the present applicant came to be arrested only in the month of May 2025 i.e. after more than 25 years from the date of registration of the present offence. It is the case of prosecution and there is material also to the said effect that the applicant had concealed himself in the district of Valsad by changing his name.

5. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant herein is alleged to have killed his own wife with a hard and blunt substance and the blows with the said substance had been given on her head and because of which, the victim had succumbed to the injuries and had died. The incident alleged in the FIR had taken place in the house of the present applicant where he was staying with the deceased wife. Learned APP has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of one witness-Laxmi who has categorically stated that she had seen the present applicant and the other co-accused transporting the dead body of the deceased after the incident was over. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant that the said Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 01:02:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20137/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined witness-Laxmi has not supported the case of prosecution during the trial against the other co-accused. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the applicant has been apprehended in the present offence after a period of 25 years and prima facie, there is an active involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the offence in question.

6. Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out to grant regular bail to the applicant. The application is dismissed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 01:02:55 IST 2025