[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Annirudhsinh @ Anopsinh Vishubha ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5787/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
aaaaaaaa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 5787
of 2026
==========================================================
ANNIRUDHSINH @ ANOPSINH VISHUBHA SODHA(ANIRUDDHSINH
VISHUBHA SODHA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 09/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for
Respondent - State.
2. By way of the present application filed under Section
482 of BNSS, the Applicant has approached this Court for
granting anticipatory bail to him in the event of his arrest in
connection with offence registered as CR No.
11213042240130 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024 filed before the
Paddhari Police Station, District - Rajkot, Rural for the
offence under Section 65(a), 65(c), 81, 98(2) and 116B of
the Prohibition Act.
3. The brief facts in nutshell are as under:-
3.1 On 14.03.2024, the complainant received secret
information that Champak @ Digo Polabhai Patel was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5787/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
transferring Indian Made English Liquor at the house situated
on the land of Champak's relative, namely Ashok Padariya,
located behind Aji Dam-3. The complainant conducted a raid
at the said place. During the raid, three persons ran away
from the spot. Indian Made English Liquor comprising a total
of 5098 bottles, worth Rs. 13,01,285/-, one vehicle worth Rs.
2,50,000/-, and iron boxes were also seized. Thereafter, a
complaint was filed before Padadhari Police Station, District
Rajkot Rural, for the offences under the sections mentioned
hereinabove.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that no
name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR dated
14.03.2024, and it is only based on the statement of the co-
accused that the present Applicant has been implicated in
the said case. Learned Advocate fairly states that the
Applicant has past criminal antecedents, and that the co-
accused in the present case have also been enlarged on bail.
The past criminal antecedents of the present Applicant are
as follows:-
Sr Name of Police Details of FIR Sections
No. Station
1 Malviya Nagar CR No. 0160/2015 323,504,506-2,114 of IPC
2 Thorola CR No. 0021/2016 467,468,420,471 and 120(b)
of IPC
3 Gandhigram CR No. 0250/2016 66(1)B, 85 of Prohibition Act
4 Chotila CR No. 0042/2018 66(1)B, 85 of Prohibition Act
5 Dhrol CR No. 302,120(b) of IPC as well as
11202014200087/2020 Section 25(1-b)(A) and 29 of
Arms Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5787/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant further submits
that the Applicant has been wrongly implicated and has not
committed any offence, either directly or indirectly, as
alleged in the complaint, and his name is not mentioned in
the FIR. The Applicant was not found in conscious possession
of the Muddamal, and he is not the owner of the land from
where the Muddamal was seized. His name was disclosed
only from the statement of the co-accused. Hence, it is
prayed that the present application be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Chintan Dave for the
Respondent - State states that apart from the above-
mentioned past criminal antecedents, the present Applicant
is also involved in the present case dated 14.03.2024
registered with the Paddhari Police Station, District - Rajkot
Rural, and argued to reject the present application.
7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
8. Section 482 of BNSS provides for bail in anticipation of
arrest where any person has reasons to believe that he may
be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-
bailable offence.
9. Learned Advocate for the Applicant could not dislodge
the fact that the complaint is of 2024, wherein the
chargesheet was filed on 09.05.2024 before the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate bearing No.136/2024, and a
supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 136A/2024 was also
filed against Accused Nos. 4 and 7 on 26.10.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5787/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
10. Learned Advocate has submitted that the co-accused
have been enlarged on regular bail; however, on the ground
of parity, anticipatory bail cannot be granted since the co-
accused have been released on regular bail. In the papers of
the charge sheet, the accused is shown as absconding since
his name is reflected in Column No. 2. The present case was
registered in the year 2024, while the passage of time is not
an absolute statutory bar to seek pre-arrest bail. It becomes
a critical factor when the conduct of the Applicant is
considered. The papers indicate that the Applicant was
absconding and normally when the accused is absconding,
there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.
11. The words used in Section 482 of the BNSS 'reason to
believe' must be based on specific facts and not on vague
allegations and apprehension. If the accused waited for two
years, a sudden apprehension is nothing but a tactical move
to stall the trial rather than genuine fear of wrongful arrest.
Thus, apprehension by the accused is not reasonable but
rather a calculated attempt to bypass the regular trial after
failing to cooperate for two years. The Applicant waited until
a trigger to move the court which reflects that the delay by
the Applicant is a deliberate attempt and stay out of the
reach of the investigating agency. Anticipatory bail being an
equitable relief, hence, a person seeking the exercise of this
Court's discretionary power must approach the court with
clean hands. By remaining elusive for a period of two years
and failing to join the investigation, the Applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5787/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
effectively stalling the progress of the case. Such conduct
disentitles the Applicant from seeking protection of the
Court. Even otherwise, considering the manner in which the
offence has been committed and the non-cooperating stance
of the Applicant, this Court is of the opinion that custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to bring the
investigation to its logical conclusion. Thus, this Court
cannot ignore the conduct of the accused who has been
evading the process of law, as in the present case. It can be
seen that the Applicant is absconding and evading arrest.
Under such circumstances, no discretionary power can be
exercised in favour of the Applicant. Hence, the present
application is rejected as being merit-less. Rule is
discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
