IMANDEVI @ANANTDEVI W/O ANANTRAM MULURAV KUSHVAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    R/CR.MA/9911/2026                               ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 9911 of 2026

==========================================================
IMANDEVI @ANANTDEVI W/O ANANTRAM MULURAV KUSHVAH & ANR.
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAJID Y KARIYANIYA(9619) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 08/05/2026

                                 ORDER
[1.0] Leave to amend the cause-title. RULE. Learned APP waives service of
rule for the respondent-State.


[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11211057260223 of 2026 registered
with Surendranagar City A Division Police Station, Surendranagar for the
offences under Sections 108, 80 (2), 85 and 54 of BNS, 2023 and under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.


[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence.
Both the applicants are lady accused. He submitted that the applicants were
residing separately and they were not residing in joint family with the
deceased. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence,
the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
conditions.




                                  Page 1 of 4
      R/CR.MA/9911/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed
the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for
regular bail on the ground that they are named in the FIR and specific role is
attributed to them. She submitted that there are serious allegations against
the applicants and it is alleged that the mother-in-law and husband were
taunting the deceased constantly since 2021 and they used to harass her
mentally and physically and they were making demands for dowry. She also
submitted that since it is an offence against women itself, lenient view may
not    be    taken.       Therefore,   present    application   does   not    deserve
consideration.


[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be
exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the
nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of
the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the
State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.


[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects
have been considered:
(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(2) The applicants are ladies;
(3) Applicants are behind the bars since 24.03.2026;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;


                                        Page 2 of 4
    R/CR.MA/9911/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




(5) The applicants were residing separately from the deceased;
(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.


[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of
trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but
amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated
principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as
well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.


[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made against the applicants in the FIR, without discussing
the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a
fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on regular bail.
Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be
released     on    regular    bail   in   connection   with   FIR     being        C.R.
No.11211057260223 of 2026 registered with Surendranagar City A
Division Police Station, Surendranagar on executing a personal bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) each with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the
conditions that they shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall
not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play
mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court
concerned;


                                      Page 3 of 4
        R/CR.MA/9911/2026                                                              ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026




 (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month
 for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
 (f) furnish the present address of their residence to the Investigating OfÏcer
 and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
 change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;
 (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall
 issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicants.


 [9.0] The authorities will release the applicants only if they are not required
 in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of
 the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
 free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.


 [10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to
 try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
 and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.


 [11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations
 of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court
 while enlarging the applicant on bail.


 [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
 permitted.


                                                                                 (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
 R.S. MALEK


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RIYAZMIYA SABIRMIYA MALEK(HC00180), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 16:30:37




                                                        Page 4 of 4