Gujarat High Court
Krunal Mayankbhai Machhar @ Dushyant ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 13024
of 2025
==========================================================
KRUNAL MAYANKBHAI MACHHAR @ DUSHYANT JHAVERI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH M SURTI(3907) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. 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. 11191066250088 of 2025 registered with Vasna Police
Station, Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Sikandar Saiyed appears for the
applicant and submits that as per the case of prosecution
the incident occurred during the period between
01.08.2023 to 30.04.2024 and FIR is registered on
21.04.2025. There is gross delay of almost 12 months, and
the complainant is miserably failed to explain the cause of
delay. He further submits that if the Hon'ble court would
go through the allegations levelled in the body of the FIR,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
in that event, it would be found out that both the parties
had come in contact and attracted towards each other
which ultimately culminated into the love affair. Both are
major and complainant was a divorcee lady whereas
applicant herein is a married person, and those fact was
well within the knowledge of the complainant. Despite the
said fact, they have entered into a relationship.
Thereafter, due to some problem qua monetary
transaction took place between them, therefore, by
levelling false and fabricated allegations, present FIR has
been filed. He further submits that the ingredients of
Section 384, 506(1), 376(2)(N) of IPC could not have been
attracted and/or satisfied, and in absence of said Sections,
at the most, it can be said that offence punishable under
Section 420 could be said to have been attracted, and
considering the penal provision of said Section, applicant
may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable terms and
conditions. Learned advocate Mr. Sikandar Saiyed has put
reliance upon the case of Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported in (2023) 15 Supreme Court Cases
385, and submits that as per the principle of law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex court, the applicant may
be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appears for respondent-State
and submits that if Hon'ble court would make cursory
glance upon the charge of accusations and allegations
levelled in the body of the FIR, then ultimately it could be
found out that under the guise of false promise of
marriage, present applicant had developed a relationship
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
with the complainant. Not only that the complainant had
taken a house on rent wherein both are residing together,
and one fine day, complainant had come to know that
applicant herein is a married person and father of one
child. The applicant herein had tried to pursue her that
there was dispute going on in his matrimonial relationship,
and her wife is demanding certain amount from him, and
he does not have that amount. If he pays the said amount
and obtain divorce then he would be in a position to enter
into a relationship of marriage with the complainant, and
therefore, complainant had paid Rs.5 lakhs on that day,
and subsequently, on number of occasions, she has also
paid different amounts to the applicant herein, and in
support of the same, she has produced certain counterfoil
receipts and bank vouchers which clearly goes onto show
that on number of occasions, complainant herein had
deposited amount in the account of the applicant.
Secondly, when they had entered into the relationship, at
that relevant point of time, the applicant herein did not
disclose that he was married, and subsequently when the
said fact has come into the knowledge of the complainant,
under one or other pretext he has obtained money from
the complainant.
4. Learned APP Mr. Soni further submits that, in fact, under
the promise of execution of marriage, complainant had
developed relationship with the applicant, and at that
relevant point of time, photographs of certain acts and
videography of the act had been captured by the applicant
in his mobile, and under the guise of circulation of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
articles in the social media, applicant had demanded
money from the complainant, and complainant
succumbed with the said demand and deposited the
different amount at various occasions in the account of
the applicant wherein certain amount is also paid through
online transactions. The above-stated factual aspects
crystallized the position of fact that involvement of the
applicant in commission of crime is clearly spelt out, and
therefore, Hon'ble court may not have to exercise
discretionary power of anticipatory bail in favour of the
applicant.
5. I have heard and considered the arguments canvassed by
the learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. It is found out from the
record that the incident occurred during the period
between 01.08.2023 to 30.04.2024 and FIR is registered
on 21.04.2025, hence, there is gross delay of almost 12
months, however, the charges of Section 384, 506(1),
376(2)(N) of IPC levelled against the present applicant are
very serious in nature. It further transpires that the
applicant had given false promise of marriage, even
though he was married and the said fact was not known to
the complainant, the present applicant had developed
relationship with the complainant. It further transpires that
the applicant and the complainant were residing together
in a rented house, however, one fine day, complainant had
come to know that applicant herein is a married person
and father of one child, the applicant herein had tried to
pursue the complainant giving reason that there was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
dispute going on in his matrimonial relationship, and her
wife is demanding certain amount from him, and he does
not have that amount, and if he pays the said amount and
obtain divorce then he would be in a position to enter into
a relationship of marriage with the complainant, and
therefore, complainant had paid Rs.5 lakhs on that day,
and subsequently, on number of occasions, she has also
paid different amounts to the applicant herein which is
supported by the counterfoil receipts and bank vouchers
produced by the complainant herein. It further transpires
that the applicant had threatened the complainant of
circulating the photographs of certain acts and
videography of the act which had been captured by the
applicant in his mobile and demanded money from the
complainant, and therefore, the complainant had
deposited different amounts at various occasions in the
account of the applicant wherein certain amount is also
paid through online transactions, and documents to that
effect have been produced by the complainant herein
which prima-facie proves the involvement of the present
applicant in commission of the crime. Therefore, on
strength of the above-stated factual aspects, this court is
of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein discretionary
power of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant cannot
be exercised.
6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as this
application has been preferred under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, I would like to refer the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.,, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694,
more particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as
under :-
"14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section
438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance
of personal liberty and freedom in a free and
democratic country. When we carefully analyze
this section, the wisdom of the legislature
becomes quite evident and clear that the
legislature was keen to ensure respect for the
personal liberty and also pressed in service the
age-old principle that an individual is presumed to
be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with the
anticipatory bail: The nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused must
be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
the antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court
in respect of any cognizable offence; The
possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
The possibility of the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or the other offences. Whereas the
accusation have been made only with the object
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
to injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her. Impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people. The courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend
the exact role of the accused in the case."
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 was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail
application is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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 case put up against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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 the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as also ratio laid down in
other decisions as stated above, 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 the involvement of the applicant in the
commission of crime.
9. It is required to be noted at this stage that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of judicial pronouncements have
observed that a court may reject an anticipatory bail
application when custodial interrogation is deemed
necessary for a thorough investigation, even if the
applicant argues that such interrogation isn't required.
Further, while custodial interrogation can be a factor in
denying anticipatory bail, it is not the sole determinant,
and courts will also consider other factors related to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13024/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
severity of the offense and the need for a comprehensive
investigation.
10. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the
observations on the legal aspect of the matter, as
applicant is actively involved in the offence, I have
absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such
an order of anticipatory bail before he is interrogated by
the Police, in that event, it would greatly harm the
investigation and would impede the prospects of
unearthing the serious offence and applicant may again
indulge in such type of criminal activities. Therefore, I do
not find any exceptional ground to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS to
grant anticipatory bail. More so, investigation is still going
on in the present case. It is settled proposition of law that
power exercisable under Section 482 BNSS, is somewhat
discretionary in character and it is to be exercised with
caution in exceptional cases.
11. Hence, the present application seeking for anticipatory
bail is hereby rejected.
12. Needless to say that observations and findings made
hereinabove are limited to the decision of these pre-arrest
bail applications, and shall not influence any other
proceedings arise from impugned FIR.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
AMIT ITALIAN
