[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jayeshkumar Vinodchandra Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8663/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8663
of 2026
==========================================================
JAYESHKUMAR VINODCHANDRA SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VRUNDA SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 16/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of this 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.
11210005260160 of 2026, registered with Athwalines Police
Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2). 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2)
of the BNS.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at
this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the
applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8663/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that
the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed
and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed
grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of
the offence and requested not to entertain this application.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid down in plethora of decisions of the 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 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 merits of the case,
which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8663/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
However, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:
a) The Applicant is a life insurance agent. The amount at the
time of maturity of the insurance policy has been credited to
the joint account of the complainant and the original accused
no. 1 when there were cordial terms between the husband and
wife. However, for the last three years, the wife--original
complainant--has been living separately. Even a reading of the
FIR makes it clear that the loan taken on the LIC policy has
also gone to the joint account of the original complainant and
the Applicant.
b) Though the present Applicant has signed as a witness,
prima facie it appears that because of the strained relationship
between the husband and wife, the Applicant has also been
dragged into the matter unnecessarily. It is alleged that even
as per the FIR, it is in September 2020 that the complainant
wife left the house, and even prior to that, the balance amount
of the policy after deducting the loan amount, if any, which
stood outstanding, had been transferred to the joint account of
Monika Shah and Manish Shah through NEFT.
c) the applicant has no past antecedents;
d) the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that
the applicant will not flee from justice and would be available
during investigation as well as the trial.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
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 & Others, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8663/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
the Court is inclined to allow the present application.
7. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that
in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in
connection with the above-referred 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 on the
following conditions that applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 21.04.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change 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) It is open to the police or the investigating agency
to move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) of the BNSS 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8663/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.
7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering
the bail application.
8. It is made clear that this 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 who is granted pre-arrest bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
