PRATIKKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16144
                           of 2026

==========================================================
                  PRATIKKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PRAJAPATI
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RIDDHI M YADAV, ADVOCATE for
MR HARDIK H DAVE(6295) for the Applicant

MR KM ANTANI APP for the Respondent - State

MR JAL S UNWALLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR IG JOSHI(8726) for the Original Complainant
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                Date : 19/08/2026

                                 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.11191008260326 of 2026, registered with the Chandkheda

Police Station, District : Ahmedabad City for the offences

punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) 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.




                                    Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




3.       Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the

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



                                            Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant

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 complainant had received a whatsapp message from

the applicant, wherein there is a mention of one false and

fabricated MoU with regard to his property – land bearing
New Survey No.234 (Old Survey No.143) situated at Mouje –

Koteshwar,          admeasuring        14569         sq.mtrs.,     regarding        sale,

wherein allegedly forged signatures of the complainant are

found, where the complainant is the owner.

b)      learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record

the Undertaking / Affidavit of the applicant dated 18.08.2026,

which      is   signed      by   the   applicant,       the      said   signature         is

identified by the learned advocate for the applicant, which is

taken      on     record,    wherein      it    has     been      stated     that        the

applicant has not connection and/or concern with the land in



                                       Page 3 of 6
      R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




question; and that the applicant has no right and interest

over the land in question; and that the applicant shall not

use, produce, rely upon or other wise utilize the said alleged

MoU before any Government office, Government Authority or

any private person in future.

c)       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
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



                                          Page 4 of 6
   R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




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;



      (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 26.08.2026 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



                                      Page 5 of 6
       R/CR.MA/16144/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026




           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

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/25

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 19/08/2026 14:58:52




                                                        Page 6 of 6