High Court of Gujarat
YOGESH VITHAAL PATILversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the applicant is not an accused, has cooperated with the investigation, has no antecedents, and does not pose a flight or tampering risk.
Summary
The applicant, Yogesh Vithal Patil, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in connection with FIR No.11191046260178 for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 61(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court examined the standard bail factors – nature of the accusation, antecedents, flight risk and potential for evidence tampering – and noted that the applicant was not named as an accused, had purchased the gold from a third party, cooperated with the investigation, and had no prior criminal record. 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 held that anticipatory bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.10,000 and a series of conditions, while emphasizing that the order does not impede police investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 BNSS in the present case
- Whether the nature and gravity of the offences justify denial of bail
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence
- Whether imposing conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS is appropriate
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482, s. 483(2)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhitas. 316(2), s. 316(4), s. 54, s. 61(2)
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSSBharatiya Nyay Sanhitaflight riskbail conditionscriminal procedureGujarat High Court
Judgment
R/CR.MA/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 12682
of 2026
==========================================================
YOGESH VITHAAL PATIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIM PANDYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MS RUCHIKA K SONI & MR NARENDRA RANAMALJI MADHU,
ADVOCATES for the Applicant
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent - State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 30/06/2026
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.11191046260178 of 2026, registered with the Airport Police
Station, District : Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 61(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/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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 present applicant has not been shown as an accused
in the FIR;
b) the applicant has purchased the gold from a third
party;
c) the applicant is protected and has remained present
before the investigation officer on 19.06.2026 and has
cooperated the investigation;
d) the applicant has not played any role attributed to the
offence as alleged;
e) the applicant has no past antecedents;
f) 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/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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 07.07.2026 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/12682/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2026
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/83
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 30/06/2026 16:48:45
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