HAFIZABEN IRFAN PAREKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/3013/2026                             ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 3013
                          of 2026

==========================================================
                         HAFIZABEN IRFAN PAREKH
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M T SAIYAD(3848) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                             Date : 30/03/2026

                              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.
11203038250650/2025, registered with Mangrol Police Station,
for the o+ences alleged therein.


3.     Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the
victim turn major on 12.11.2025 and got married with org
accused on 15.11.2025. Original accused and victim were in
relationship since last four years. The father and mother of the
Applicant were against the said marriage. The alleged incident



                                 Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/3013/2026                       ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




of abortion is of 20.07.2024. The org accused came to be
arrested on 03.12.2025, whereas, the FIR came to be lodged
on 28.12.2025. Thus, it is argued that the FIR is lodged after
threatening the victim and to rope the entire family of the
original accused and sister and brother in law of the accused
No. 1.


3.1     Learned advocate for the applicant further 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 4ee from justice.


3.2     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.      Per contra, 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 o+ence and requested not to entertain this application.
Learned APP would further submit that when the abortion was
carried out the victim was minor. Though there are no speci7c
statement of the doctor supporting presence of applicant,
however, from the reading of the FIR, presence of the present
Applicant are surfaces on record.




                              Page 2 of 6
      R/CR.MA/3013/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




4.1     Learned           Advocate   Mr.    Y.      J   Patel     for    the    Original
Complainant would submit that since the presence of the
present Applicant while carrying out abortion was surfaces on
record from the FIR itself, the Court may not exercise
discretionary jurisdiction and argued to reject the captioned
application. He further submits that even as per the A<davit
7led by the I.O. before the Sessions Court, the statement of the
victim under Section 183 of the BNSS is also on record.


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 including the fact as to whether
she has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
Court in respect of any cognizable o+ence; (iii) the possibility
of the applicant to 4ee 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:




                                      Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/3013/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




a)    The Original accused and the victim seems to have been
in consensual relation prior to the lodging of the FIR. Victim
having turn major on 12.11.2025 (date of birth 13.11.2007)
and married on 15.11.2025, however the present original
accused came to be arrested on 03.12.2025 and the FIR came
to be lodged on 28.12.2025.

b)   The Original accused and victim has stayed together for
almost 15 days. Though the allegations of abortion gets
substantiated from the statement of the doctor, however,
presence of the present Applicant is not surfacing on record
from the investigation till today.

c)   the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that
the applicant will not 4ee 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


                                       Page 4 of 6
      R/CR.MA/3013/2026                        ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




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 o<cer;

        (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 07.04.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the
        Investigating O<cer shall ensure that no unnecessary
        harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;

        (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
        address to the investigating o<cer and the court
        concerned and shall not change residence till the 7nal
        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 in4uence
        outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.

7.1     At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be in4uenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering
the bail application.




                               Page 5 of 6
           R/CR.MA/3013/2026                                                                      ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026




    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.



                                                                                                             (P. M. RAVAL, J)
    MMP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/03/2026
17:51:10




                                                                Page 6 of 6