Gujarat High Court
Yogesh @ Anand Dhirendra Shribikau ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20137/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 20137 of 2025
==========================================================
YOGESH @ ANAND DHIRENDRA SHRIBIKAU SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DHRUVIN U MEHTA(9993) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging
the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.I-46 of 2000 registered with Vapi Town Police Station, Valsad
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned appearing for the applicant submitted that the
present applicant has been arrested in connection with the
present offence on 25.05.2025 for an offence which was
registered in the year 2000. He further submitted that the other
co-accused had been prosecuted and the learned Sessions Court
vide Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2001 had passed an order
of acquittal of those co-accused. He further submitted that in the
trial conducted against the other co-accused, none of the
witnesses of prosecution case have supported the case of the
prosecution which has resulted into the acquittal of the other co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20137/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
accused. He further submitted that it is the case of prosecution
against the applicant that the applicant had absconded after the
registration of the present FIR, however, the applicant was very
much present in Valsad district itself and had not absconded. He
therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge
the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP has opposed the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The present
offence came to be registered in the year 2000 whereas the
present applicant came to be arrested only in the month of May
2025 i.e. after more than 25 years from the date of registration of
the present offence. It is the case of prosecution and there is
material also to the said effect that the applicant had concealed
himself in the district of Valsad by changing his name.
5. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant herein is
alleged to have killed his own wife with a hard and blunt
substance and the blows with the said substance had been given
on her head and because of which, the victim had succumbed to
the injuries and had died. The incident alleged in the FIR had
taken place in the house of the present applicant where he was
staying with the deceased wife. Learned APP has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the statement of one witness-Laxmi
who has categorically stated that she had seen the present
applicant and the other co-accused transporting the dead body
of the deceased after the incident was over. It is submitted by the
learned advocate appearing for the applicant that the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20137/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
witness-Laxmi has not supported the case of prosecution during
the trial against the other co-accused. Be that as it may, the fact
remains that the applicant has been apprehended in the present
offence after a period of 25 years and prima facie, there is an
active involvement of the present applicant in the commission of
the offence in question.
6. Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out to
grant regular bail to the applicant. The application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
AHS
