High Court of Gujarat
JABABEN KAKALBHAI GOTATARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, subject to a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each and specified conditions.
Summary
The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita relating to a dispute over the sale of immovable property. One applicant had already been arrested, and his application was withdrawn; the remaining two applicants sought bail, assuring the court of their cooperation and lack of flight risk. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court examined the nature and gravity of the accusations, the civil character of the property dispute, the applicants' clean antecedent record, and the assurance of cooperation, and relied on precedents such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). Finding no compelling reason to deny bail, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each and a set of conditions, while preserving the police’s right to seek arrest for any breach.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.
- Whether the civil nature of the underlying property dispute and the applicants' clean antecedent record justify bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the risk of flight or tampering with evidence warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482, s. 483(2)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhitas. 111(2)(b), s. 318(4), s. 54
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSScriminal procedureproperty disputecivil nature of offenceno antecedentsbond conditions
Judgment
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 14602
of 2026
==========================================================
JABABEN KAKALBHAI GOTATAR & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
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 applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in
the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11195061260467 of 2026, registered with Dantiwada Police
Station, District: Banaskantha for the offences punishable
under Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya
Nyay Sanhita.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to
withdraw this application qua applicant no.2, as he has
already been arrested. Permission as prayed for is granted.
This application is withdrawn qua applicant no.2 and
considered qua applicant nos.1 and 3 only. Learned advocate
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
Mr.Hriday Buch submits that he has instructions to appear
for the original complainant. He is permitted to file
vakalatnama in the Registry.
3. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.
4. 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.
4.1 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.
5. 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.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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 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 dispute is with respect to the sale of immovable
property and the present applicants, being the owners of the
said property, had agreed to sell the property and thereafter
the sale deed has not been executed; the dispute is of a civil
nature;
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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 be
available during investigation as well as the trial.
7. 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.
8. 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
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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;
(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
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/14602/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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.
8.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by
the prima facie observations made by this Court while
considering the bail application.
9. 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.
10. 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 16:47:47
Page 6 of 6
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anticipatory bail"Sign in to search