SEJAL KANA BADHIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/17153/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 17153
                           of 2026
==========================================================
                             SEJAL KANA BADHIYA
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. G. K. GADHAVI(14945) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. OM S. TRIPATHI FOR MR. YASH K. DAVE for the Respondent(s)
MR. NIRAJ SHARMA 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.

11993003260780 of 2026, registered with Anjar Police Station

(East),     District:     Kutch     for   the       offences    punishable        under

Sections       109(1),    115(1),    118(2),        324(4),    296,     189(2),     190,

191(2), 191(3), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections

25(1), 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, as well as Section 135 of

the GP 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

this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the


                                      Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.MA/17153/2026                                           ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




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

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



                                            Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.MA/17153/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




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)       as for the role attributed to the present applicant, she

is stated to have been present at the time of the offence, but

she tried to intervene and settle the matter.


b)       it is further stated that the present applicant had only

accompanied           the     accused     and      was    present    at    the    scene,

however, the FIR does not state that she assaulted the

complainant or anyone else present.


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



                                          Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.MA/17153/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




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;

        (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



                                      Page 4 of 5
       R/CR.MA/17153/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 10/08/2026




          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

 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)
 ADITYA SINGH/59


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ADITYA SINGH(HC02376), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/08/2026 17:33:37

                                                 Page 5 of 5