Gujarat High Court
Balvant Singh Dhan Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
17240 of 2025
==========================================================
BALVANT SINGH DHAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. M. K. GAMARA(16370) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the
respondent-state.
2. By way of the present successive application under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the
applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail
in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11187006240779 of 2024 registered with Lunawada
Police Station, Mahisagar.
3. Though Notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") has been issued but
the applicant did not join the investigation. Thereafter charge-
sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. It appears that
the present applicant is cited as accused and the applicant is
shown in Column No.2 of charge-sheet.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature
of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this
stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view
of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that
the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions.
5. 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 submitted
that the applicant had previously filed an application for
anticipatory bail, Criminal Misc. Application No. 5363 of 2025
was withdrawn on 17.03.2025 as the Court was not inclined to
pass any relief in favour of the applicant. Since then, there has
been no change in circumstances in the case. Therefore, learned
APP submits that the application be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. Having gone through the papers available on record, it
appears that an application for anticipatory bail, being Criminal
Misc. Application No. 5363 of 2025 was withdrawn on
17.03.2025 as the Court was not inclined to pass any relief in
favour of the applicant. Since then, there has been no change in
circumstances in the case. However, the present successive
application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant
without any change the circumstances.
8. On perusal of the contents of the complaint and the case
papers of investigation, it prima facie appears that the present
applicant-accused had supplied the prohibited liquor to the co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
accused from Rajasthan. Two of the co-accused were
apprehended red-handed, and during the course of investigation,
the name of the present applicant surfaced. Thus, a prima facie
case is made out against the present applicant-accused, and the
investigation cannot be said to be complete without his presence.
The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant do not
merit acceptance in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
9. It is worth to mention that the applicant is shown as
absconder in Column No.2 of charge-sheet. It appears that he is
on run. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in
2023 INSC 784; Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012)
8 SCC 730; Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in
2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and Srikant
Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda reported in 2025 INSC
477, the Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case
to exercise its jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail in favour of the
applicant.
10. In view of the above, as there is no change in the
circumstances meaning thereby the reason assigned by the
learned Sessions Judge attained the finality and in absence of
any change in the circumstances, the present application for
anticipatory bail deserves to be dismissed in light of the law laid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
down by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs Kanksinh
Mohansinh Mangrola, reported in (2005) 1 GLH 665, wherein
the Court held as under:
"While deciding the second successive anticipatory bail
application of the respondent no.1-accused, learned
Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the
following aspects. Due to claveshhange in circumstance,
party can approach the court below or the High Court
under Sec.438 of the Code and court can deal with that
point of change in circumstance only. However, the court
cannot enter into the grounds which were previously
contested by the parties and have become final. Here in
this case, court below has violated the basic principle of
law laid down by the Apex Court on this point by dealing
with all points raised by the accused in the first
application filed under Sec.438 of the Code and which
were already decided by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Surat, in detail with prima-facie reasons. Said
order was carried further by the accused in the High
Court and at the end of arguments, it was withdrawn
and hence it has become final between the parties and
hence, learned Sessions Judge should not have dealt
with the same points again in the successive
anticipatory applications."
11. Despite the withdrawal of earlier bail application, the
applicant has filed this subsequent anticipatory bail application
without any change in the circumstances of this case. In this
regard also, reference needs to be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu vs The
State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 176.
12. So far as the contention of parity on the ground that other
co-accused have been released on bail is concerned, it is well
settled that at the stage of deciding a bail application, the Court
should refrain from appreciating the evidence in detail. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates
for the respective parties and the specific stand taken by the
applicant seeking the benefit of parity on the ground that the co-
accused have been granted bail, this Court has examined the
material collected during the course of investigation to ascertain
the applicability of parity. In this regard, reference may be made
to the decision in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana, AIR 2021 SC 221, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, while considering a bail application on
the ground of parity, the Court must examine the exact role
attributed to the accused. If the role played by the accused is
found to be similar to that of the co-accused who have been
granted bail, then the benefit of parity may be extended. Merely
relying upon stray observations or words in the order is neither
sufficient nor appropriate for claiming parity, and such an
approach would be erroneous.
13. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case and
looking to the material placed on record, it clearly transpires that
the applicant has remained absconder. In the instant case, role
of the applicant is attributed as a receiver of the liquor and it
was very much within the knowledge of the applicant that
Gujarat being a dry state, prohibition is there, however, he
ordered the contraband.
14. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary.
When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an
accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath
to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature
of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is
conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the
BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal
liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the
present offence is not just an offence against any individual
rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved
in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to
be maintained between two rights one against the personal
liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the
process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes.
In which the accused may provide information, during the the
discovery of material facts and to relevant information.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh
vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 has
been pleased to hold as under:-
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offences are required to be satisfied and further while
granting such relief, the court must record the reasons
therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
liberty."
16. It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs.
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest
and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it
also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate
balance between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a
balance between safeguarding individual rights and
protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and
presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on
society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the
facts and circumstances of each individual case
becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
17. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the applicant that in
the present case, muddamal is recovered and therefore, no
custodial interrogation is required is concerned, it is worthy to
mention that herein, prima facie case is made out against the
present applicant and there are serious allegations against the
applicant is that he used to supply the liquor to the co-accused
and he was in active contact with other accused and he has
actively participated in the offence. Thus, in order to reach to a
logical conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
deserves a free hand. There is no rule that if custodial
interrogation is not required then anticipatory bail is required to
be granted. The custodial interrogation is one of the good
grounds to reject the anticipatory bail application but merely
because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a
ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. In this regard,
reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar
C.K. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529, wherein it is
observed and held as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
"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."
In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only
the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to
unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
18. Further, Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant to Article 47
of the Constitution of India, the directive principles of the State
policy, it is the duty of the State to raise the standard of living
and improve the public health and for the said purpose,
prohibition of such intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in
the Gujarat State. The State is committed to the ideas and
principles of Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhji and State
also firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor
or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to intoxicating
drugs and total prohibition in the State and for that
amendments also being made in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17240/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie involvement being
made out, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
19. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid
down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case
to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in
favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, present application
does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
20. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall
decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being
influenced by the observations made in the present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
