Gujarat High Court
Mahendra Ramsing Rajput (Chadana) vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
15712 of 2025
==========================================================
MAHENDRA RAMSING RAJPUT (CHADANA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPESH D SONI(9996) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 11/08/2025
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.11210067250295 of 2025 registered with
the Saroli Police Station, District Surat for
the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipesh Soni for the
applicant and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Soni
for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submits that the so-
called incident is occurred on 02.05.2025,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
whereas, FIR is registered on 19.05.2025. Thus,
there is gross delay of 17 days in in
registering the FIR and complainant has not
assigned any reason about the delayed
registration of the FIR. He further submits that
it is the specific case of the prosecution that
after the occurrence of the incident, the
complainant had taken the dead body of the
deceased to his native place and after
completion of requisite formalities, he has
verified the materials of the deceased and at
that relevant point of time, he found one
suicide note purportedly written by his daughter
and thereafter he has come to know that constant
and incessant mental and physical torture meted
out by the applicant herein to the deceased and
all those facts she has narrated in the suicide
note and therefore complainant was constrained
to register FIR against the applicant. Learned
advocate Mr. Soni further submits that if the
Hon'ble Court could go through the contents of
the said suicide note purportedly written by the
deceased, in that event, it would have been
found out that the so-called incident of beating
is occurred in the month of December, 2024,
whereas, the deceased has committed suicide in
the month of May, 2025. It is settled law that
there must be a close proximity between the
positive act of instigation by the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
person and the commission of suicide by the
victim. However, as can be seen from the suicide
note, there is no nexus and/or connection
between the commission of suicide by the
deceased and the alleged incident of December,
2024. He further submits that, in fact, as per
the case of the prosecution, the deceased had
lastly come into contact with the applicant and
their common friend and thereafter she has
committed suicide. Therefore, considering the
aforesaid totality of the facts, applicant
cannot be held responsible for the unfortunate
incident of commission of suicide by the
deceased. He, therefore, submits that applicant
may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable
terms and conditions.
5. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the
respondent - State has objected present
application with vehemence and acrimoniously
submitted that name as well as specific role of
the applicant is clearly found out from the body
of the FIR as well as other attending
circumstances available on record. He further
submits that deceased herself has written a
suicide note, wherein, name as well as specific
role of the applicant is clearly found out. He
further submits that not only that in support of
the same, certain other materials have been
collected by the investigating officer in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
form of inquest panchnama as well as P.M. Note,
where from, the sustenance of the injuries by
the deceased on various parts of her body is
clearly found out. He further submits that not
only that she has faced tremendous torture at
the hands of the applicant and at the time of
committing suicide those particular facts have
been disclosed by her by way of suicide note.
She has also preferred an application before the
concerned police authority to the effect that
incessant and constant torture as well as mental
cruelty is meted out to her by the applicant,
due to which, police has recorded her statement
on 29.04.2025, wherein, all those facts have
been narrated by the deceased in a graphical
manner. He further submits that not only that on
the fateful day of incident, present applicant
has made phone call to the deceased, wherein,
another person is also joined in the
conversation and he has also admitted that
threat was administered by the applicant. Thus,
from the contents of the FIR as well as
materials collected by the IO, involvement of
the present applicant in the commission of crime
is clearly spelt out. Hence, the Hon'ble Court
may not have to exercise its discretionary
powers of anticipatory bail in favour of the
applicant.
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
both the parties and considered the materials
placed on record, it is found out that the
daughter of the complainant has committed
suicide and thereafter it has come to the notice
of the complainant through suicide note of the
deceased that due to physical and mental torture
of the applicant, deceased has committed suicide
and therefore he was constrained to register FIR
against the applicant. It is the case of the
applicant that in the suicide note, the deceased
has made a reference of an incident which was
occurred in the month of December, 2024,
whereas, the deceased has committed suicide in
the month of May, 2025. Thus, applicant cannot
be held responsible for the commission of
suicide by the deceased. However, learned APP
has referred to and relied upon the statements
of witnesses as also the materials collected by
the investigating officer in support of the
versions and contents of the FIR. I have also
considered the materials collected by the IO
during the course of investigation and from all
those materials including the suicide note of
the deceased and medical evidence, prima facie
involvement of the applicant is found out.
Hence, without discussing much on merit, when
prima facie involvement of the applicant in the
commission of crime is spelt out, this being the
anticipatory bail application, I am not inclined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
to entertain it.
7. 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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
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
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."
8. Thus, while taking into consideration the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various decisions, I have gone through the
contents of the FIR, which is placed on record
and also considered the affidavit of the
investigating officer filed before the learned
Judge concerned opposing the bail application
preferred by the applicant. Upon going through
the contents of the FIR, it appears that prima
facie case is made out against the applicant and
material collected so far suggests involvement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15712/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
of the applicant in the commission of crime.
9. Hence, the present application seeking
anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
10. It is needless to say that the aforesaid
observations and findings are limited to the
decision of this pre-arrest bail application
only and they shall not come in the way of the
applicant in any other proceedings.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
