PATEL DURGABEN SAHJANANDBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/8950/2026                         ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 8950 of 2026
                           With
        R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 9117 of 2026

================================================
        MEGHARAJBHAI BHEMABHAI CHAUDHARI
                         Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. VISHWA M SHAH(15460) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 27/04/2026

                           ORAL ORDER

1.      As both the matters arise out of the same FIR, they are heard
together and are being decided by this common order.


2.      By way of these applications under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the
applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest
in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11195051260290 of 2026,
registered with Tharad Police Station, District: Banaskantha for the
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(3), 189(3), 191(2),


                                Page 1 of 9
      R/CR.MA/8950/2026                          ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




191(3), 190, 195(1), 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 125, 121(1), 132, 126(2),
61(2), and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).


3.      Gravamen of the complaint is that on 18.03.2026 when the
complaint was on duty as ASI, a mob of around 800-1000 people
belonging a particular community, with a view to protest inter-
cast marriage, gathered, and in furtherance of their common
intention, by forming unlawful assembly, blocked the highway
and attacked the police personnel who were trying the calm down
and scatter the mob; one of the persons named Kiran Chaudhary,
who was driving a Scorpio car, also tried to run over the car on the
police staff; the mob also allegedly assaulted the police personnel
with iron pipes they possessed; they also pelted stones and
thereby, injured several police witnesses and also damaged public
property worth approximately more than Rs.1 lakh and thereby,
committed the alleged offence, for which, FIR in question came to
be registered.


4.      Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.


4.1     Learned senior advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwalla, appearing
with Mr. D. M. Devnani, learned advocate for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026 and learned advocate
Mr. P. S. Chaudhary for the applicant in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 9117 of 2026 would submit that the nature of
allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not


                                Page 2 of 9
      R/CR.MA/8950/2026                            ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep
themselves available during the course of investigation and trial
also and will not flee from justice.


4.2     The learned senior advocate for the applicant (in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) would further submit that the
applicant was not at all present at the time and place of incident
and he was at somewhere else i.e. at Sagat Mata temple, situated at
at Runi Village and, thus, he claimed alibi. He submits that the
presence of the applicant (in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950
of 2026) can be very well established from the CCTV footage and
photographs at the said location i.e. Sagat Mata temple at Runi
Village, which are produced at Annexure ‘B’ to the application.


4.3     The learned senior advocate for the applicant (in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) further submitted that the
applicant attended a community meeting at Runi Village, for
which,       permission   was   also    availed   by   one     Jagmalbhai
Karshanbhai Chaudhary, a copy of which is produced at
Annexure ‘C’ to Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026. He
submitted that, thereat, the applicant neither deliver any
inflammatory speech nor instigate the crowd nor posted any
provocative statements or videos on social media. It is further
submitted by the learned senior advocate that even otherwise no
specific accusation is there against the present applicant to the
effect either he had used a specific weapon and/or caused injury


                                Page 3 of 9
     R/CR.MA/8950/2026                               ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




to any of the witnesses.       Accordingly, it is urged that his
application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of 2026) may be
considered favourably and anticipatory bail may be granted to
him.


5.     So far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of
2026 is concerned, the learned advocate for the applicant would
submit that the applicant is a lady and a social worker, working
for women empowerment. He submitted that a bare perusal of the
FIR would reveal that the FIR in question is politically motivated.
The learned advocate for the applicant (in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 9117 of 2026) would further submit that the
applicant had not at all gone to Unn Village where the alleged
incident took place and from the place of meeting i.e. Runi Village,
she directly went to her village.            It is submitted that taking
advantage of clash between two communities, where there are
more numbers of police officers of other community, political gain
is sought for by some political persons.            It is submitted that,
though the applicant is named in the FIR, no role is attributed to
her.    Accordingly, it is urged that applicant may be granted
anticipatory bail.


6.     The learned advocates for the applicants further state that
the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, it is urged that these applications may be allowed


                               Page 4 of 9
     R/CR.MA/8950/2026                          ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.


7.     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 these applications. It stated that the
applicants herein were very much present at the meeting which
took place at Village Runi and they instigated the mob which led
to occurrence of incident in question at Village Unn where, a mob
indulged into crime in question and caused injury to many police
personnel as well as damaged the public property worth more
than Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that the applicants tried to create
animosity between two communities and thereby, created a
serious law and order situation and accordingly, it is requested
that these being anticipatory bail applications, the same may not
be considered at this crucial stage and the same may rejected.


8.     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


                               Page 5 of 9
   R/CR.MA/8950/2026                            ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




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)    as per FIR itself, a mob of 800-1000 people had
      gathered at the time when incident had occurred and in the
      circumstance, identification of present applicants appears to
      be difficult;

      b)    from the documents on record, presence of the
      applicants at the place of offence prima facie appears to be not
      proved. On the contrary, it appears from the photographs
      produced on record that the applicant in Criminal Misc.
      Application No. 8950 of 2026 was present at Village Runi at
      Sagat Mata temple which is approximately 60 km away from
      the place of incident i.e. Unn Village;

      c)    the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of
      2026, who stated to be a social worker, also not at all gone at
      the place where the incident occurred i.e. Unn Village and
      after conclusion of community meeting, she went to her
      home village;

      d)    prima facie it appears that no specific role attributed to
      the present applicants save and except the bare statement
      that they instigated the mob. Even, there is nothing to
      suggest prima facie that the present applicants themselves or
      at their instance, anyone had inflicted any injuries to the


                               Page 6 of 9
     R/CR.MA/8950/2026                             ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




       police witnesses and also hindered in their official duty;

       e)   prima facie, the incident appears to be a matter of clash
       between two communities;

       f)    so far as offence punishable under Section 190 of the
       BNS is concerned, firstly, the prosecution has to establish
       shared common object between the accused and they were
       part of the unlawful assembly and secondly, to prove that
       the accused were aware of the offences, likely to be
       committed, are to achieve the said common object. In the
       instant case, both the ingredients, are prima facie appear to be
       not satisfied inasmuch as, presence of the applicants at the
       place of incident itself appears to be not proved and thus, no
       specific role and/or act is attributed to the present applicants
       except bare statement of instigation etc.;

       g)       the applicants stated to have no past antecedents;

       h)    the learned advocate for the applicants has assured
       that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be
       available during investigation as well as the trial.


9.     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
applications.




                                  Page 7 of 9
      R/CR.MA/8950/2026                            ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




10.     In the result, these applications are allowed by directing that
in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in connection
with the above-referred FIR, the applicants shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with one surety of like amount each on the
following conditions that applicants:


        (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) applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8950 of
        2026 shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
        04.05.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. So far as
        applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9117 of 2026, she
        shall appear before the investigation officer 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

                                   Page 8 of 9
       R/CR.MA/8950/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




          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.


10.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
bail applications.


11.       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
applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail.


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


                                                                                           [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/DB/1/21-22tss27426




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 27/04/2026 11:11:36


                                                      Page 9 of 9