HITESHBHAI BHARATBHAI KHAMBHALIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11866
                           of 2026

==========================================================
                    HITESHBHAI BHARATBHAI KHAMBHALIYA
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRUPAM D NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. JALPABEN V
VANALIYA(14100) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                  Date : 30/06/2026

                                   ORAL ORDER
1.      By way of this application under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya         Nagarik       Suraksha          Sanhita,       2023       ( for     short,
“BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the
event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.

11190008260154 of 2026, registered with Botad Rural Police

Station, District: Botad for the offences punishable under

Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 125(B), 281, 352, 351(3), 212

of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 177, 184, 134 of

the M.V.Act and Section 135(1) of the G.P.Act.



2.      Rule.         Learned     Additional            Public   Prosecutor          waives

service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

Learned advocate Mr.Darshankumar P Vasad submits that he

has      received         instructions       to        appear    for     the        original

complainant. He is permitted to file vakalatnama in the


                                         Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




Registry.        He        has    produced     the     affidavit   sworn       in       the

complainant on 20.5.2026, which is taken on record. Learned

advocate for the original complainant identifies the signature

of the original complainant in the said affidavit.



3.       Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the

nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at

this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the

applicant will keep himself available during the course of

investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.



3.1      The learned advocate for the applicant further states

that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may

be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed
and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.



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



                                         Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




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 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, prima facie,
following aspects have been taken into consideration:



a)      the affidavit of the original complainant states that the

dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties and

he does not have any objection, if the anticipatory bail is

granted; that he has further stated that at the time of

lodging of the FIR, due to shock, injuries, confusion and

emotional        distress,      he   had      stated     that     the    accused       had

intentionally attempted to kill the complainant and committed

an act amounting to attempt to murder.



                                          Page 3 of 6
      R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




b)     though the learned APP has stated that there are other

antecedents against the present applicant, considering the fact

that the dispute pertains to matrimonial dispute and the

affidavit of the complainant, this Court is inclined to grant

this application.



c)       the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that

the     applicant          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 applicant in

connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicant shall be



                                          Page 4 of 6
   R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount on

the following conditions that applicant:



      (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;



      (d)     shall      remain     present         at    the      concerned       Police

      Station on 07.07.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;



      (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;




                                      Page 5 of 6
        R/CR.MA/11866/2026                                                                  ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026




            (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 applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.



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

 service is permitted.



                                                                                        (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
 SRILATHA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SRILATHA VENKATARAO UPADHYAYULA(HC00185), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/06/2026 14:40:11

                                                           Page 6 of 6