Gujarat High Court
Manoj Kailas Thorat vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
21364 of 2025
==========================================================
MANOJ KAILAS THORAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARISINGH SODHA(17638) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 14/10/2025
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.11198066250012 of 2025 registered with
Velavadar Bhal Police Station, District
Bhavnagar for the alleged offences as mentioned
in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Harisingh Sodha for the
applicant submits that on the basis of secret
information received by the members of raiding
party, they had intercepted one vehicle,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
wherefrom, they recovered prohibited articles.
Therefore, FIR came to be filed. He further
submits that during the course of interrogation
of the co-accused, who was caught red-handed
along with the prohibited articles, names of
other accused persons have come on surface. He
further submits that name of the applicant has
come on surface on the basis of statement of the
co-accused. It is alleged that applicant is the
supplier of the seized prohibited articles.
Learned advocate Mr. Sodha further submits that
similarly situated person has been considered by
this Court and therefore considering the
principle of parity, applicant may also be
enlarged on bail by imposing suitable
conditions. He further submits that there is no
antecedent against the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni
has strongly objected the present application
and submitted that on the basis of secret
information received by the members of the
raiding party, they intercepted one vehicle and
carried out search and during the course of
search, they recovered certain prohibited
articles and therefore FIR has been registered.
Thereafter, during the course of investigation,
statement of accused persons came to be recorded
by the IO. At that time, one of the co-accused
has given the mobile number of the applicant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
based upon which, applicant has been arraigned
as an accused. The applicant is the supplier of
the prohibited articles. Learned APP Mr. Soni
submits that during the course of investigation,
investigating officer has collected sufficient
materials, which clearly go on to show that
applicant was in direct touch with the co-
accused who carried the said article. Thus,
prima facie involvement of the applicant in the
commission of crime is found out. He further
submits that so far as the co-accused, who has
been considered by this Court is concerned, he
has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of
statement of the co-accused, who was partner of
the said accused and therefore it is natural
that they were in contact with each other and
considering the said fact, though CDR was
available, this Hon'ble Court has enlarged the
said accused on bail. However, the role of the
applicant is quite different and distinct and
applicant was in constant touch with the other
accused persons and the said fact is fortified
from the CDR. He submits that the prima facie
involvement of the applicant in the commission
of crime is clearly spelt out from the materials
collected by the IO. He submits that
investigation is going on and therefore this is
not a fit case wherein discretionary powers of
anticipatory bail can be exercised in favour of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the applicant.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
both the parties and having gone through the
materials placed on record, it is found out that
on the basis of secret information received by
the members of the raiding party, they
intercepted one vehicle and carried out search
and during the course of search, they recovered
certain prohibited articles and therefore FIR
has been registered. Thereafter, during the
course of investigation, statement of accused
persons came to be recorded by the IO. At that
time, one of the co-accused has given the mobile
number of the applicant, based upon which,
applicant has been arraigned as an accused. It
is alleged that the applicant is the supplier of
the prohibited articles. It is the case of the
applicant that similarly situated person has
been considered by this Court and therefore
applicant may also be enlarged on anticipatory
bail considering the principle of parity.
However, it is required to be noted that though
CDR was available on record, the said accused
has been enlarged on bail considering the fact
that he has been arraigned on the basis of the
statement of co-accused, who was his partner and
therefore it is obvious that they were in touch
with each other. However, except that there was
no any other incriminating material available on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
record which connects the said accused with the
commission of crime. However, in the instant
case, applicant was in constant touch with the
accused persons who were carrying the said
prohibited articles and the said fact is
fortified from the CDR collected by the IO
during the course of investigation. Thus, the
applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of
parity. Thus, considering the appreciating the
materials available on record, I am of the prima
facie view that applicant is involved in the
commission of crime.
6. I have also perused the contents of the FIR,
affidavit filed by the IO at the time of
objecting anticipatory bail application of the
applicant before the learned Trial Court, the
reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court at
the time of rejecting the anticipatory bail
application of the applicant as well as other
corroborative materials in the form of
statements of the witnesses and considering the
said materials, I am of the opinion that, prima
facie, the applicant is involved in the
commission of crime. Though at the stage of
deciding bail, an elaborate examination of
evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit
of the case, which may prejudice the accused,
should be avoided. Therefore, at this stage,
without discussing the evidence in detail, I
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
restrict myself to the extent of giving the
opinion of prima facie involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
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 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. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the
facts and circumstances, peculiar to the instant
case, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the
applicant has failed to make out a special case
for exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21364/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
and considering the facts and parameters,
necessary to be considered for adjudication of
anticipatory bail, this Court does 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.
9. Hence, the present application seeking
anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
10. Needless to say that the observations and
findings made hereinabove are limited to the
decision of this pre-arrest bail application,
and shall not influence in any other proceedings
arising out of the impugned FIR.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
