DIPEN MOHANBHAI PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/11822/2026                           ORDER DATED: 19/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11822
                           of 2026

================================================================
                          DIPEN MOHANBHAI PARMAR
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.DEVENDRA H PANDYA(6462) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                              Date : 19/05/2026

                               ORAL ORDER

1.      RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
        of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.


2.      Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for
        the respondent – State.


3.      By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
        Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’),
        the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in
        connection with the FIR bearing No.11191011260124 of
        2026 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad
        City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5),
        336(2), 336(3), 338, 54, 3(5) etc. of the Bharatiya Nyay
        Sanhita, 2023.


4.      Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of
        allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this
        stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant


                                  Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/11822/2026                              ORDER DATED: 19/05/2026




        will keep himself available during the course of investigation,
        trial also and will not flee from justice.


5.      Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that
        the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the
        conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to
        powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before
        the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that
        upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency,
        the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on
        merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore,
        submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may
        be granted anticipatory bail.


6.      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.


7.      Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
        perusing the material placed on record and taking into
        consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations,
        gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without
        discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined
        to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.


8.      This Court has considered following aspects,

        (i)     the applicant is merely an employee in the Company
                offering financial services;

        (ii)    the FIR itself indicates that the present applicant was
                not the partner in the Company and he was only an
                employee;



                                  Page 2 of 4
      R/CR.MA/11822/2026                             ORDER DATED: 19/05/2026




         (iii)   as per the FIR itself, the complainant initially came in
                 touch with the accused Nos.1 and 2 only and the
                 present applicant was serving as a financial adviser in
                 the Company owned by the accused Nos.1 and 2;

         (iv)    though investigation is going on at present, prima-facie,
                 it seems that the present applicant is only an employee
                 and not the beneficiary of the alleged scam;

         (v)     the applicant has assured this Court through advocate
                 Mr. Devendra Pandya that the applicant shall make
                 himself available for the purpose of investigation as and
                 when required;

         (vi)    there is no past antecedents reported against the
                 present applicant;


9.       In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the
         custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, I am
         inclined to consider the case of the applicant.


10.      This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid
         down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
         Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
         reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
         Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
         in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs.
         State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.


11.      In the result, the present application is allowed. The
         applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his
         arrest in connection with FIR No.11191011260124 of 2026
         registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City
         on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
         Thousand Only) with one surety each of like amount on the
         following conditions:



                                   Page 3 of 4
        R/CR.MA/11822/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 19/05/2026




           (a)       shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself
                     available for interrogation whenever required;

           (b)       shall remain present at concerned Police Station on
                     25.05.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

           (c)       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;

           (d)       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;

           (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
                     concerned trial court and if having passport shall
                     deposit the same before the concerned trial court
                     within a week; and

           (g)       it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an
                     application for remand if he considers it proper and just
                     and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

12.        At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced
           by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the
           present order.


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


                                                                                    (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/05/2026 12:43:42


                                                    Page 4 of 4