Namaben Ramjibhai Dhandhar (Rabari) vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/2794/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2794
                                                of 2026
                     ==========================================================
                                        NAMABEN RAMJIBHAI DHANDHAR (RABARI)
                                                       Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR YASH V GUPTA(11814) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR VASHISTHA M JOSHI(8972) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                        Date : 29/04/2026

                                                          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 applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11993007251806 of 2025, registered with B Division Police Station, Gandhidham for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 85s of the BNS, 2023. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Applicant has preferred anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 23 of 2026.

2.1 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the marriage of the deceased and the accused No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2024 as per their customs. It is stated

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

in the FIR that after marriage the deceased was residing with her husband i.e., accused no. 1 at Gandhidham. It is further stated that the brother in law and the sister in law - Applicant herein were residing nearby at Gandhidham. It is alleged in the FIR that the martial life of the deceased was cordial for about two months. It is stated that the accused no. 1 had availed a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from his nephew Sagtabhai. It is alleged that for the repayment of the same, the accused persons were demanding money from her. It is further stated that the first informant intervened and tried to cunsel the husband and the brother in law. It is further alleged that on 17.12.2025 at around 4.00 pm, the deceased once again called the first informant and informed him about continuous demand for money. The first informant advised her to come to their house. The deceased informed him that she would come the next morning . It is stated that on 18.12.2025 at around 6.00 am the first informant received a call from Devabhai informing him that his sister Deviben has committed suicide and requested him to come immediately. It was informed that Deviben had hanged herself and was taken to Rambag Government Hospital, Aadipur. The first informant along with his parents reached the Hospital where he saw that Deviben was lying in the Postmortem Room with Black marks on the neck. After completion of Post mortem the dead body was handed over to the family and the last rituals were performed at her in laws house at Gandhidham. After five days, the FIR, came to be registered.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicants further states that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.

3.2 Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that even on reading of the FIR, it is clear that the present Applicant and her husband, who has been granted regular bail, were living separately though near the house of the accused. No specific role has been attributed to the present Applicant except for a vague allegation of demanding money from the deceased, who is the wife of the original accused No. 1 - Devabhai. Learned Advocate further submits that the sister-in-law of the original accused No. 1 has nothing to do with the alleged offence, nor has she instigated the deceased or abetted the commission of suicide under the provisions of BNS, 2023, and therefore it is prayed that the present application be allowed. Learned Advocate further submits that immediately before the suicide, no overt act is attributed to the applicant.

4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

the offence, and has requested that this application not be entertained. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the present Applicant and the husband of the deceased were pressurizing the deceased to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from her father, which was borrowed at her instance, for which she was mentally harassed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted since the married life was only of one year, and this would clearly amount to demand of dowry, and due to mental and physical cruelty by the Applicant, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, it is prayed that the application be rejected.

4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Vasistha M Joshi supports the contentions raised by the learned APP and submits that though the Applicant is residing near the house of the deceased, serious allegations of physical and mental cruelty are specifically stated in the FIR, and therefore it is prayed that the present application be rejected.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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. However, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

a) The judgment in the case of Nareshkumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR Online 2024 SC 136 holds that mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The accused is a lady aged about 33 years and is living separately.

Except for vague allegations of mental cruelty, there is no allegation of physical assault. Even the allegations of harassment of the deceased and mental torture are vague in nature. This Court is also considering the application submitted by the original accused No. 1 before the DSP, Gandhidham, Kutch East, dated 23.12.2025, which speaks volumes about the transaction of Rs. 2 lakhs.

b) The applicants have no past antecedents.

c) The learned advocate for the applicants has assured that the applicants will not flee from justice and would remain

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

available during investigation as well as the trial.

d) Without discussing the merits and demerits of the case in detail, which would prejudice either side, this is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, more particularly when the husband of the deceased has been enlarged on regular bail.

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, 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 applicants in connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like amount each on the following conditions that applicants:

(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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/2794/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 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 applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail.

9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP