MEENABEN UPENBHAI VEGDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8387
                          of 2026

==========================================================
                         MEENABEN UPENBHAI VEGDA
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANTKUMAR S SHETH(11096) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                 Date : 17/06/2026

                                  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.

11208050260096 of 2026, registered with A Division Police

Station,      Rajkot     City     for     the         offences    punishable         under

Sections 54, 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023

and Section 4 of the Dowry 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

nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at



                                        Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




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

including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone



                                           Page 2 of 6
      R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




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 applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and

staying separately at a different place;



b)      the applicant has cooperated with the investigation;


c)      the applicant has no past antecedents;


d)      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




                                         Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




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
       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



                                        Page 4 of 6
      R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                             ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




        collected or yet to be collected by the police;



        (d)      shall         remain    present        at    the       concerned       Police

        Station on 24.06.2026 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.



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.



                                          Page 5 of 6
         R/CR.MA/8387/2026                                                                   ORDER DATED: 17/06/2026




  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.

                                                                                         (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 17/06/2026 14:38:22




                                                            Page 6 of 6