High Court of Gujarat
MANSI D/O RATIBHAI VIROLIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court held that, on the facts, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS must be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The petitioner, Mansi d/o Ratibhai Viroliya, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection against arrest in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court examined the standard bail factors – nature of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, risk of flight and potential for evidence tampering – and noted the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation, lack of prior criminal record, and the fact that the dispute arose from a cheque‑bounce matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on precedents such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail was ordered with a personal bond of Rs.10,000 and a series of conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation and prevent interference with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 BNSS for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(2) and 54 of the BNS.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Whether the applicant's cooperation, lack of antecedents and the nature of the underlying cheque‑bounce dispute justify the exercise of discretion in favour of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482, s. 483(2)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhitas. 316(2), s. 316(4), s. 318(2), s. 54
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSSBharatiya Nyay Sanhitacheque bounceNegotiable Instruments Acthigh court bail orderGujarat
Judgment
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9476
of 2026
==========================================================
MANSI D/O RATIBHAI VIROLIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALAK A PANDYA(7164) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MALAY J. BOSAMIYA(15563) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AAYUSH N MULCHANDANI(12960) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA V PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/07/2026
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.11191011250448 of 2025, registered with the D.C.B. Police
Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita (‘the BNS’ for short).
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
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
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.
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
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
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, prima facie,
following aspects have been taken into consideration:
a) the applicant has appeared before the investigating
officer and cooperated the investigation;
b) the entire transaction was of accused No.1 – Meet
Paneliya;
c) before filing the FIR, a legal notice under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been issued by the
owner of the firm viz., Adctrogen Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.,
wherein the dispute is with respect to the dishonour of
cheques of Rs.24,71,152/-;
d) the applicant has no past antecedents;
e) 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.
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
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
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
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
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 22.07.2026 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.
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/9476/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
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.
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)
M.H. DAVE/19
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHESHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL DAVE(HC00193), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/07/2026 14:46:24
Page 6 of 6
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anticipatory bail"Sign in to search