High Court of Gujarat
PRASANT VIJAY AGRAWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court held that, given the prima facie facts, lack of prior antecedents, non‑life‑imprisonment nature of the offence and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS may be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Prasant Vijay Agrawal, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with an FIR (C.R. No.11200051260817) alleging offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) for failing to marry a complainant after a consensual relationship. The applicant argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, he would cooperate with the investigation, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, citing the nature and gravity of the alleged offence. The Court examined the standard bail factors—nature of accusation, antecedents, flight risk, and potential misuse of the process—and, relying on precedents such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), found the allegations to be non‑serious, the applicant cooperative, and the offence not punishable with life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety and to comply with several conditions, while preserving the police’s right to seek arrest for any breach.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 BNSS for an offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) BNS.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the applicant’s antecedents, and flight risk justify denial of bail.
- Whether imposing conditions on anticipatory bail is appropriate in the facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitas. 482, s. 483(2)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhitas. 64(2)(m)
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSSSection 64(2)(m) BNSbail jurisprudencematernity/relationship disputeconditions of bailflight risk
Judgment
R/CR.MA/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 13237
of 2026
==========================================================
PRASANT VIJAY AGRAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 10/08/2026
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.11200051260817 of 2026, registered with the Dungra
Police Station, District : Valsad for the offences punishable
under Sections 64(2)(m) 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
nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at
Page 1 of 6
R/CR.MA/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
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
including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
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 entire allegation is that after the applicant has
promised to marry the complainant, he had not married;
b) the FIR reveals that the applicant was in relation with
the complainant till the year 2025 and lastly, they had
relation on 05.02.2025;
c) there was a consensual relationship;
d) the applicant has appeared before the investigating
agency on 23.06.2026 and has cooperated the investigation;
e) the offences are not punishable with life imprisonment;
f) the applicant has no past antecedents;
g) 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.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
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
officer;
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
(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 17.08.2026 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/13237/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026
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/87
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 10/08/2026 17:46:07
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