PINKY KAILASH AGARWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/16969/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16969
                           of 2026

==========================================================
                            PINKY KAILASH AGARWAL
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY A TAMAKUWALA & MR ADITYA SHARMA with RONITH JOY,
ADVOCATES for the Applicant
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent - State
MR SAUBHAGYA M DUBEY(17061) for the Ori. Complainant
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                Date : 11/08/2026

                                 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.11210006260309 of 2026, registered with the Dumas Police

Station, District : Surat for the offences punishable under

Sections 316(5), 54 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita

(‘the BNS’ for short).



2.      Rule.      Learned     Additional         Public     Prosecutor         waives

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



3.      Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the




                                    Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/16969/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




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

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



                                            Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/16969/2026                        ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




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)      considering the role attributed the present applicant, the

entire dispute is with respect to the partnership business of

the joint family;

b)      the fact remains that the complainant and the applicant
are family members and were doing joint business together in

the name of KN Knitting Industries;

c)      moreover, in the FIR, the role attributed to the present

applicant is of purchasing Plot No.578 by a registered sale

deed on 27.12.2022, but the investigation has not been able

to show that the said amount has been paid from the funds

that were to be received by the complainant and/or her

deceased husband by way of the said partnership share of

either the complainant and/or her husband;

d)      the entire dispute is a civil dispute and given a colour



                              Page 3 of 6
      R/CR.MA/16969/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




of criminal;

e)       the applicant has no past antecedents;

f)       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

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



                                          Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/16969/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




   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 18.08.2026 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/16969/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




           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.



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)
M.H. DAVE/55

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHESHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL DAVE(HC00193), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/08/2026 14:42:27




                                                        Page 6 of 6