[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kababhai Savdasbhai Rabari vs State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6625/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6625
of 2026
==========================================================
KABABHAI SAVDASBHAI RABARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR(5678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 08/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for the 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 FIR being C.R. No.
11217027260048 of 2026 registered with Radhanpur Police
Station, District: Patan, for the offences alleged therein.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced
only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. It is
further submitted that the nature of allegations are such that
custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6625/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
applicant will remain present as and when required during the
course of investigation and trial and will not flee from justice.
The applicant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by this Court and, therefore, it is urged
that the present application be allowed.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant, to show his bona fides,
further submits that the applicant has deposited an amount of
Rs. 18,00,000/- in the account of the Cooperative Society on
23.03.2026 in cash. It is clarified that neither the present
applicant, in his capacity as Chairman, nor the co-accused
Secretary, Rabari Jahabhai Madevbhai, shall be permitted to
withdraw the said amount under any circumstances.
5. Learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave, appearing for the
respondent - State, has opposed the present application. It is
submitted that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act have also been invoked and that the present applicant has
signed various documents and ratified the accounts.
Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no role is
attributed to the applicant. It is, therefore, urged that the
present application be rejected. It is further submitted that
Sections 12, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act have been added vide order dated 10.03.2026
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Radhanpur.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6625/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers on record, the Court is
required to exercise its discretion cautiously and in
accordance with the settled principles of law. It is well settled
that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the
Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the
accusation, antecedents of the applicant, possibility of fleeing
from justice and whether the accusation is made with an
intention to injure or humiliate.
On consideration of the material on record, the following
aspects emerge:
(a) On a reading of the entire FIR, it appears that the co-
accused, namely Secretary Rabari Jahabhai Madevbhai, is
alleged to be the mastermind of the conspiracy involving
misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 36,25,242.08. However,
the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to
signing the resolution and ratifying the accounts of the
Cooperative Society and there are no specific allegations of
misappropriation against him.
(b) The applicant has no past antecedents.
(c) The applicant has assured to remain present during
investigation and trial and not to flee from justice.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, Gurbaksh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6625/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665
and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020)
5 SCC 1, this Court is inclined to allow the present
application.
8. In the result, the present application is allowed. It is
directed that in the event of arrest/appearance of the
applicant in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like
amount, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and
remain present for interrogation as and when required;
(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case;
(c) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the
investigation or tamper with the evidence;
(d) The applicant shall remain present before the concerned
Police Station on 16.04.2026 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00
p.m.;
(e) The applicant shall furnish his address at the time of
execution of bond and shall not change the residence without
prior permission;
(f) The applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court and, if possessing a passport, shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6625/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
deposit the same before the trial Court within one week;
(g) It will be open for the investigating agency to move the
trial Court for appropriate orders under Section 483(2) of the
BNSS in case of breach of any condition.
8.1 At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while deciding
the present application.
9. It is clarified that this order shall not in any manner
restrict the powers of the investigating agency to carry out
further investigation in accordance with law.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
