[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Guddu Patram vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 9575 of 2026
================================================
GUDDU PATRAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 24/04/2026
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. 11994012260016 of 2026, registered
with Sabarmati Railway Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City
for the offences punishable under Sections 305(C) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Patel for the applicant
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent -
State.
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
pursuant to the FIR in question, the applicant had preferred an
application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1750 of 2026 for
anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated
16.03.2026 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Court No. 16, Ahmedabad, and hence, the applicant is before this
Court by this application.
3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted
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.
3.3 It is submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and is
not even remotely connected in the crime in question. He
submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime as
alleged and that, the applicant is an Attendant working in the
Railway Department and is falsely roped in the crime only as on
the day of incident, he was working as an Attendant. He
submitted that the allegations in the FIR are vague and general in
nature and is highly improbable. He would further submit that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
the applicant has no past antecedents and is residing with his
family at the address given in the cause-title.
3.4 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.
4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the it may be that the applicant is an Attendant working in the
Railways, however, he was not allotted the duty as an Attendant
in the train in which the incident in question took place. It is
submitted that muddamal is yet to be recovered and in the
circumstances, if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, it
may seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution. It is further
submitted that the applicant is not a resident of Gujarat and his
custodial interrogation is required to elicit the truth. Accordingly,
it is urged that this application may be rejected.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
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 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.
However, following salient aspects have been taken into
consideration by the Court:
a) the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal
v. State of Punjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in para 23,
has observed as under:
"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot
be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations,
which the court should keep in mind while considering the
plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the
cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over
solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes,
defeat the cause of public justice."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
(emphasis supplied)
b) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, reported in
2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus:
"9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid
down by the apex court and considering the averments made
in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after
considering the observations made by the learned sessions
judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that
custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself,
cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this
is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in
favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this
application is required to be rejected."
(emphasis supplied)
c) the applicant though was working as an Attendant
with the Railways, however, when the incident occurred, he
was not allotted the duty in the train in which the incident in
question took place;
d) prima facie from the CCTV footage, presence of the
applicant in the train in which incident took place, is
established;
e) the applicant is a resident out of Gujarat and hence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9575/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
grant of bail while investigation is underway, may
jeopardize the investigation and it may be difficult to secure
his presence.
5.1 Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, this is not a fit
case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
6. In fine, the application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/DB/1/6tss24426
