RAHUL PANDITRAO AHIRRAOversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/18246/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 18246
                           of 2026

==========================================================
                          RAHUL PANDITRAO AHIRRAO
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JYOTINDRASINH J VALA(10975) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                  Date : 06/08/2026
                                   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.

11824004261085            of   2026,     registered       with      Songadh        Police

Station,      District:    Tapi    for    the        offences    punishable        under

Sections 318(4), 336(2), 340(2), 341(2), 342(2), 347(1), 349,

61(2) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita along with

Sections 65(a), 65(e), 67-1A, 81, 83, 98(2) and 116B of the

Prohibition Act.



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 5
      R/CR.MA/18246/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




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 5
      R/CR.MA/18246/2026                                             ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




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)       the     offences         alleged     are         not     punishable      with         life

imprisonment;

b)       the applicant has no past antecedents;

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



                                            Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.MA/18246/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




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

        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 13.08.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;



        (e)     shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the



                                       Page 4 of 5
        R/CR.MA/18246/2026                                                                   ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




             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 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 06/08/2026 15:04:32

                                                            Page 5 of 5