Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar Chhaganlal Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9406/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9406
of 2025
==========================================================
SANJAYKUMAR CHHAGANLAL RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. By way of the present 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.11210055241996 of 2024 registered with Salabatpura Police
Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 108
and 54 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") / The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS").
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence
and he is falsely implicated in the offence. The incident occurred
on 23.12.2024, whereas the complaint was registered on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9406/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
24.12.2024, resulting in a delay in filing. However, no
explanation was provided by the complainant for this delay. The
essential elements of abetment are not satisfied. It is further
submitted that the entire story is fabricated, and the
applicant/accused has no connection with the alleged offence.
Moreover, the applicant was not present at the scene of the
offence, the applicant may be granted bail with the imposition of
suitable conditions. It is further submitted that, considering the
nature of the offence, the applicant may be granted bail with the
imposition of suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Dave,
appearing for the respondent-State, has submitted that the
applicant-accused, along with other accused, failed to make a
payment of ₹60-70 lakhs to the complainant's father and also60-70 lakhs to the complainant's father and also
issued threats to kill him. As such, a prima facie case exists
against the applicant. It is further submitted that the deceased
left a suicide note in which the applicant's name was mentioned.
Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and
perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon
the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9406/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him
so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit
of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be
avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) The allegation against the present applicant is that he owed
₹60-70 lakhs to the complainant's father and also70-80 lakh to the deceased. However, instead of making
the payment, he allegedly threatened to kill the deceased if
he demanded the money. Due to continuous threats, the
deceased committed suicide and left a suicide note naming
the applicant. However, it appears that there was a
business transaction, and committing suicide was not the
only option left for the deceased to recover the money.
(2) The applicant has no past antecedent.
(3) Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the
present applicant.
(4) No direct evidence of instigation or mens rea is made out
against the present applicant. In this regard, this Court
deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 76, as well as Ayyub &
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9406/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
2025 INSC 168.
8. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665
and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow
the present application.
9. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210055241996 of 2024
registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on the following conditions that applicant :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 15/05/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary
harassment or inconvenience is caused to the
applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9406/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change his residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same
before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the applicant;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application
is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
