Muhammad Ismail Limdiya vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 3021 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Muhammad Ismail Limdiya vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/10324/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10324
                                                  of 2026

                       ==========================================================
                                                  MUHAMMAD ISMAIL LIMDIYA & ORS.
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                       MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                          Date : 01/05/2026

                                                           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. 11207028240009/2024 registered with Halol Town Police Station, District: Panchmahal for the offences alleged therein.

2.1 The applicants, who are the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Case No. 870 of 2024 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, District Panchmahal, have approached this Hon'ble Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

2.2 The aforesaid criminal case arises out of FIR being C.R. No. 11207028240009 of 2024 registered with Halol Town Police Station, District Panchmahal, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the trial commenced before the learned ACJM, Halol.

2.3 At the stage of trial, the complainant preferred an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking addition of charges pertaining to forgery against the present applicants. The learned ACJM, by order dated 17.03.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 870 of 2024, partly allowed the said application and directed addition of charges under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against all the applicants.

2.4 Pursuant to the addition of the aforesaid charges, more particularly Section 467 of the IPC, which is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, the learned ACJM issued a notice dated 24.03.2026 directing the applicants to remain personally present before the Court on 01.04.2026 for the purpose of being taken into judicial custody.

2.5 Apprehending arrest and custodial detention in view of the newly added non-bailable offence, the applicants preferred an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Halol. However, the learned Sessions Court,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

by order dated 21.04.2026, rejected the said application primarily on the ground of maintainability.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the applicants have preferred the present application before this Hon'ble Court.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

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. However, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

a) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. H.L. Patel for the applicants. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326, and in Sumit v. State of U.P., reported in (2026) LiveLaw (SC) 147 [AIR 2026 SC 904].

b) Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that, in view of the addition of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment for life, this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicants. It is further submitted that though the applicants were earlier granted bail by the police authority on 16.01.2024 in connection with the FIR of the year 2024, the present application for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

c) Considering the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel in Pradeep Ram (supra) and Sumit (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have decided the anticipatory bail application on merits. However, the learned Sessions Court rejected the same primarily on the ground of maintainability by placing reliance upon the decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1444, though the said judgment has been considered and distinguished in Pradeep Ram (supra) and Sumit (supra).

d) The learned Sessions Court has rejected the application without assigning proper reasons and without discussing as to why anticipatory bail ought not to be granted. The rejection is based merely on the observation that, upon addition of serious offences during the pendency of trial, the applicants cannot prefer an application for anticipatory bail.

e) However, the legal position as laid down in Pradeep Ram (supra) and Sumit (supra) makes it clear that once an accused has been enlarged on bail and the trial has commenced, issuance of notice upon addition of offences would not, by itself, result in curtailment of the liberty already granted. It has also been held that there is no absolute bar on granting or continuing anticipatory bail even after filing of the charge-sheet, as the primary objective of anticipatory bail is to prevent undue harassment by way of pre-trial arrest.

f) Considering that the applicants are already facing trial and that the procedure as laid down in the aforesaid judgments has not been properly followed, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary powers in favour of the applicants.

g) the applicants have no past antecedents;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

h) the learned advocate for the applicants has assured that the applicants 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, 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 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10324/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

undefined

(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 08.05.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the Investigating Officer shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicants;

(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 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) MOHD SAIF ULLAH