PRAKASH MOHANLAL LOLversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/13524/2026                                              ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 13524
                           of 2026

==========================================================
                             PRAKASH MOHANLAL LOL
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ARBAAZKHAN A PATHAN (9532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                      Date : 13/07/2026

                                        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.11189002260120                of     2026,    registered          with      the       Maliya

Miyana         Police     Station,      District        :   Morbi,     for    the       offences

punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and

116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.



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/13524/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




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/13524/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




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 present applicant has not been named in the FIR;

b)       in    the     entire      FIR,      it    has    been      stated      that        the

muddamal was supplied by accused No.5 and accused No.5,

being a brother of the present applicant, is apprehended

arrest on the ground that the present applicant had stated
that      as     and       when      the     accused      are     caught       with         the

muddamal, they should give the name of Jabbarsingh as he

was in judicial custody;

c)       the applicant has no past antecedents;

d)       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

by     the     Hon’ble        Apex      Court      in    the    case    of    Siddharam



                                           Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/13524/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




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/13524/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




         (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 20.07.2026 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.



7.1      At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by



                                        Page 5 of 6
       R/CR.MA/13524/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




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/43

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 13/07/2026 15:59:48




                                                        Page 6 of 6