PRIYANKABEN W/O. BRIJESHBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/8482/2026                           ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 8482 of 2026

================================================
        PRIYANKABEN W/O. BRIJESHBHAI PATEL
                          Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR N.D. NANAVATY, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR NEEL P
LAKHANI(10679) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                             Date : 13/04/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.      Learned advocates Mr. Prem Jariwala and Fenil Master state
that they have instructions to appear on behalf of de facto
complainant Yashkumar Kirtikumar Patel as well as victim
Mr. Pathik Jiteshbhai Patel, respetively.        They shall file their
Vakalatnama before the registry in due course.


1.1     Registry to accept their Vakalatnama.


2.      Rule.      Learned advocates for the respective respondents
waive service of notice of rule.


                                 Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/8482/2026                            ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




3.      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. 11210045261179 of 2026, registered
with Pandesara Police Station, District: Surat for the offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 54
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).


4.      Learned senior advocate for the applicant, at the outset,
submits that the matter is settled between the parties and the de
facto complainant and the original victim have no objection if
present application is considered in favour of the applicant.


4.1     The learned senior advocate for the applicant submits 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 herself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.


4.2     The learned senior 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.


5.      As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor


                                Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/8482/2026                          ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




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 advocates for the de facto complainant as well as
the original victim produce affidavits of settlement, affirmed by
the de facto complainant as well as the victim, which are taken on
record.


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,
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


                               Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/8482/2026                             ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




consideration:


       a)   the applicant is a lady and appears to be a namesake
       partner in the firm which was run by the husband who is
       currently in judicial custody;

       b)    aggrieved parties i.e. the de facto complainant and the
       victim have arrived at a settlement with the applicant herein
       and affidavits to that effect are produced on record stating
       therein factum of settlement and no active role of the
       applicant in the offence in question;

       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.


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



                                  Page 4 of 6
      R/CR.MA/8482/2026                          ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




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 as
        and when called for;

        (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

                                Page 5 of 6
          R/CR.MA/8482/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026




   prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
   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/7tss13426




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 13/04/2026 17:14:59


                                                         Page 6 of 6