Pradipkumar Harisinh Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/9906/2026                              ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

                                                                                                          undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9906
                                                  of 2026

                       ==========================================================
                                                 PRADIPKUMAR HARISINH SOLANKI
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS. DIVYANGANA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                        Date : 28/04/2026

                                                         ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant - accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11200019260245/2026 registered with Valsad Police Station, Valsad District for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

2. The learned advocate for the appellant has argued that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, however, prior to the alleged incident, the said vehicle had been lawfully given on rent to the accused under a valid Rent Agreement, dated 14.10.2025. At the time of the alleged offence, the vehicle was in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9906/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

the exclusive possession, custody, and control of the said person, and the petitioner had neither any knowledge nor any connection with the alleged illegal transportation of liquor, and therefore, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Per contra, Learned APP has argued that the name of the applicant is the supplier of the said liquor and his custodial investigation is required, and the applicant being the main supplier of the liquor prima facie involvement of the present applicant is found, and therefore the application is required to be rejected.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is involved in the offence.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9906/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

5. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant, and having considered the facts of the investigation reveals that the present applicant is the owner of the said vehicle which was used in the said offence. Though, the applicant has been trying to place on record the rent agreement dated 14.10.2025 to show that at the time of the alleged offence, the vehicle had been lawfully given on rent i.e. the vehicle was not in the possession, custody and control of the petitioner, and also he did not have any knowledge or any connection with the alleged illegal transportation of liquor. But the fact remains that the said is only an agreement, and as per the investigation the present applicant is alleged to have committed the role of the supplier of alleged muddamal i.e., 8976 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor worth Rs.35,06,160/- which was recovered from the vehicle bearing Registration No. DD-01-AE-9432 belongs to the applicant.

5.1. Moreover, the present applicant has an antecedent for the offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116(B) of the Prohibition Act. Though, it has been stated that the anticipatory bail application was filed before the Sessions Court at Valsad, and the said has been granted on 29.12.2025 on certain conditions as stated in the order dated 29.12.2025 in CRMA No. 1430/2025, and in view of the said fact the criminal antecedent of the present applicant by itself are sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail. In view of the fact, the applicant had also committed offences of similar nature previously, and is registered against the present applicant. In view of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9906/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

Judgment reported in Sharad Sehgal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. In Special Leave to appeal (CRL.) no. 5309/2026, wherein in the Apex Court at Para-6 has observed as under:

"The criminal antecedents of the Respondent no. 2 by itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail."

6. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Court held that life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest of society and public. This is not a case, wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has been pleased to hold as under:-

"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."

7. It would be apposite to refer the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198.

8. It would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9906/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."

9. If the present applicant is/are protected with this order, this Court is of the considered view that if the present accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously affect the case of the prosecution and adversely the qualitative investigation. This is not a fit case, wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence and it appears that there is no frivolity, with a view to tarnish his image. Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required.

10. Further, Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the directive principles of the State Policy, it is the duty of the State to raise the standard of living and improve the public health and for the said purpose, prohibition of such intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in the Gujarat State. The State is committed to the ideas and principles of Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhji and State also firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to intoxicating drugs and total prohibition in the State and for that amendments also being made in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9906/2026 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie involvement being made out, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

11. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of the Code/482 of BNSS in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, present application does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.

12. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH