TIPENDRA CHIMANBHAI PIYAJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/2046/2026                          ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 2046 of 2026

================================================
            TIPENDRA CHIMANBHAI PIYAJA
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
DIPAK N JOSHI(1689) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NILESHKUMAR H PIPALIYA(11747) for the Applicant(s) No.
1
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 08/05/2026

                           ORAL ORDER


1.      Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.


2.      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. 11191008250788 of 2025, registered
with Chandkheda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the
offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 351(2) and 54 of the

                                Page 1 of 8
      R/CR.MA/2046/2026                          ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).


3.      Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the daughter of de
facto complainant eloped with the present applicant out of love
and entered into matrimonial relationship by performing Court
marriage on 09.10.2020. It is alleged that after a period of 8-9
months, the daughter of the de facto complainant visited them on
the count that her mother-in-law was taunting her for domestic
works and the present applicant as well as her brother-in-law took
the side of their mother and therefore, on 17.08.2021, they got
separated by executing a Divorce Agreement. Thereafter, again,
the daughter of the de facto complainant started living with the
present applicant at his home in Live-in relationship and in the
year 2023, gave birth to a baby boy out of the said relationship.
However, it is alleged that the present applicant as well as other
co-accused continued mental as well as physical torture and
taunting which eventually led the deceased to commit by jumping
from the flat and on the said facts, the FIR in question came to be
registered.


4.      Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State
and learned advocate Mr. A. M. Parekh for the de facto
complainant.


4.1     The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that


                                Page 2 of 8
      R/CR.MA/2046/2026                          ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




the applicant is an innocent person and is falsely implicated in the
crime in question.        He submitted that the applicant and the
deceased were in love and had firstly entered into Court marriage
against the wish and will of the de facto complainant and hence, on
demise of her daughter, who fell from the terrace, as a
counterblast, present FIR has been filed.


4.2     The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that at
the time of incident i.e. on 22.11.2025, the applicant was not
present at the residence and was on an overseas trip and hence,
there cannot be any immediate physical and/or mental torture to
the deceased as alleged.


4.3     The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled inasmuch as
there is nothing on record to show any specific, direct or
proximate act on the part of the present applicant which could
have driven the deceased to commit suicide. It is stated that the
allegations in the FIR are general in nature.


4.4     The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that even
otherwise 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.




                                Page 3 of 8
      R/CR.MA/2046/2026                          ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




4.5     The learned advocate for the applicant further stated 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.


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.      The learned advocate for the de facto complainant, while
adopting the submission of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, submitted that within a short span of the marriage, the
deceased committed suicide which is solely because of the
persistent physical and mental torture at the hands of the present
applicant as well as the co-accused. The learned advocate for the
applicant would further submit that the incident in question has
occurred at the matrimonial home and nowhere else, and in the
circumstances, when a person has lost her life, present being an
anticipatory bail application, the same may not be entertained and
it is requested to be rejected.


7.      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,


                                  Page 4 of 8
   R/CR.MA/2046/2026                            ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




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, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:


      a)    just before the deceased committed suicide, the
      applicant-accused was admittedly on an overseas trip and
      thus, was not present in the country;

      b)    absence of the applicant while the incident in question
      occurred, significantly weakens the allegation of active
      instigation or "incitement" required to satisfy the ingredients
      of Section 108 of the BNS;

      c)    record reveals that a Public Notice dated 28.11.2021
      was issued by the de facto complainant (father of the
      deceased) in Sandesh Newspaper which is suggestive of the
      fact of a strained relationship between the deceased and her
      parents, wherein the father publicly disowns his own
      daughter on account of her love marriage with the present

                               Page 5 of 8
     R/CR.MA/2046/2026                           ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




       applicant;

       d)    the deceased resided at her parental home immediately
       prior to the incident (from 11.11.2025 to 21.11.2025) and
       committed the act within 24 hours of returning to the in-
       laws' house. Given the husband's absence from the country,
       the nexus between the husband’s conduct and the suicide is,
       prima facie, not established for the purpose of bail;

       e)   in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is
       of the opinion that the case does not warrant further
       custodial interrogation;

       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.


8.     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.


9.     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)



                               Page 6 of 8
      R/CR.MA/2046/2026                          ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




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
        15.05.2026 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 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.


9.1     At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the

                                Page 7 of 8
           R/CR.MA/2046/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




    bail application.


    10.       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.


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


                                                                                              [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
    hiren/26tss8526




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 12:32:39



                                                          Page 8 of 8