Gujarat High Court
Natwarsinh @ Natubha Vajubha Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
19201 of 2025
==========================================================
NATWARSINH @ NATUBHA VAJUBHA GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of the present 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. 11211009250642 of 2025 registered with Chotila Police Station, District Surendranagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya for the applicant submits that as per the case of the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined prosecution, the so-called incident is occurred on 12.08.2025, whereas, FIR is registered on 13.08.2025 against two known persons and two unknown persons, wherein, name of the applicant is mentioned at serial No.2. He has read the FIR and submitted that entire sequence of events of incident narrated by the complainant, prima facie, seems to be unbelievable. He submits that it is the specific case of the complainant that at the relevant point of time, complainant was serving as Revenue Talati in the office of Mamlatdar, Chotila. Since last six months, the complainant is working under the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Chotila for the purpose of curbing down illegal mining activities in the area of Chotila, Thangadh and Muli taluka of Surendranagar District. As per the case of the complainant, on the date of incident, when he was on patrolling, at that relevant point of time, he saw one dumper of the ownership of the accused persons carrying sand, which was illegally mined by them. Therefore, the complainant has informed the members of his team to take legal action against the driver of the said dumper. It is the case of the complainant that he followed the dumper and in the premises of one Jio Petrolpump, the driver of the said dumper unloaded the sand and tried to escape from the place and therefore Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined complainant tried to chase the said dumper and at that relevant point of time, with a view to obstruct the complainant from discharging his official duty, all the accused persons came in a Black Innova car. It is the case of the complainant that applicant was sitting in front seat and accused no.1 was driving the said car and two unknown persons were sitting in the back seat of the said car. The driver of the car dashed his car with the motorcycle of the complainant, however, somehow complainant maintained his balance and thereafter tried to overtake the said car and at that relevant point of time, applicant herein instructed the driver of the car to drive the car over the complainant and kill him and with a sole intent to kill the complainant, the driver of the car drove the car in a full speed and dashed it with the motorcycle of the complainant and thereafter ran away. Hence, the FIR is registered against two known persons and two unknown persons.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Gateshaniya submits that in fact applicant was not driving the said vehicle and in the said incident, complainant has sustained minor injuries and immediately on the next day he was discharged from the hospital. He further submits that there is one antecedent against the applicant in the year 2019, wherein, he has already been acquitted by Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined the Court concerned. He further submits that at the time of registration of the FIR, the prosecuting agency has invoked Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and therefor, the FIR itself is not maintainable in view of statutory bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has put reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Ramji Bhikha Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(1) GLH 203, in Govardhankumar Thakoredas Asrani v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2018(1) GLH 63 and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ashok and others, v. the State, reported in 1987 Cri. L. J. 1750 in support of the said contention. Learned advocate Mr. Gateshaniya further submits that principle of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions clearly goes on to show that the issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered. He further submits that if the perusal of FIR and other materials makes it clear that offence under Section 221 of the BNS is loosely interconnected with other distinct offences and cannot be split up, then in such circumstances, bar of Section 195 of CrPC would apply to such other distinct offences also. He, therefore, submits that considering the aforesaid overall facts of the present matter, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined suitable conditions.
6. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the respondent - State has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that with a sole intent to obstruct the complainant from discharging his official duty, all the accused persons have made daring attack upon the complainant and with a view to kill him, they dashed their car with the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which, complainant has sustained serious injuries. It is the specific case of the complainant that from the very beginning, he has identified the applicant and other accused persons. It is also the specific case of the complainant that applicant has instructed the driver of the car to drive the car over the complainant and kill him and therefore the driver of the vehicle dashed his car with the complainant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has also recorded the statement of owner of the car and also carried out the Panchnama of the car. He has read the statement of the said witness and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would go through the contents of the said statement, in that event, it would have been found out that the Innova car of the ownership of the said witness has been given to the accused persons. He further submits Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined that if the Panchnama of the Innova Car is to be seen, in that event, it appears that the said Innova Car is in damaged condition. Thus, the version of the complainant is fortified from the aforesaid materials collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. He further submits that investigating officer has also recorded the statement of one person who was serving at the Petrolpump where the sand was unloaded by the driver of the dumper. He, therefore, submits that all those materials collected by the investigating officer go on to show an active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. He, further submits that the absolute bar, or embargo, under Section 195 CrPC only comes into play at the stage where a court takes cognizance and same is not applicable to the police investigation stage. He has put reliance upon various case laws in support of the aforesaid contentions. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, when the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out, applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it is found out that Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined complainant is a Public Servant and as per his case, during the course of discharge of his duties, all the accused persons have, with a sole intent to obstruct the complainant from discharging his official duty, made daring attack upon him. It is found out from the record that all the accused persons have come in one black Innova Car and dashed the said car with the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which, complainant sustained serious injuries. It is also found out from the record that complainant has very graphically mentioned the role of the applicant. As per the case of the complainant, applicant was sitting on front seat and accused No.1 was driving the said car and as per the instruction of the applicant, accused no.1 had dashed the said car with the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which, complainant sustained serious injuries. I have also gone through the statement of one witness, who is the owner of the said car. He has very specifically stated that the said car is of the ownership of the said witness and it was given to the applicant. I have also gone through the Panchnama of the vehicle, which was damaged. Thus, the narration of facts of the FIR is corroborated from other materials collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. I have also perused other materials collected by the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined investigating officer. Learned advocate Mr. Gateshaniya for the applicant has submitted that on account of invocation of Section 221 of the BNS Act, the FIR itself is not maintainable in view of statutory bar of Section 195 of the CrPC. However, it is well settled that the bar or embargo under Section 195 CrPC comes into play only at the stage where a court takes cognizance and same is not applicable to the police investigation stage. Thus, from the materials collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out.
8. It is required to be noted that no doubt this Court has extraordinary powers to protect an innocent person, however, the said power has to be exercised by the Court with due circumspection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529 held that merely because custodial interrogation is not required, by itself, could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court, while hearing the anticipatory bail application, has to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined "It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19201/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
9. Hence, the present application seeking anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.
10. Needless to say that the observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of this pre-arrest bail application, and shall not influence in any other proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:49:31 IST 2025