High Court of Gujarat
ZAKIYA W/O. MOHD. NAIM - PROPRIETOR OF ZARIN FATIMA DUPATTAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court held that, in view of the commercial nature of the dispute, lack of prior antecedents and the applicants' willingness to cooperate, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS may be granted with conditions.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(5), 316(4), 318(4), 54 and 60 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) arising from a commercial transaction. The State and the original complainant opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offences. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, the existence of a parallel civil suit, and the applicants' assurances of cooperation. 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 concluded that bail could be granted with strict conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.10,000 with a surety of equal amount and imposed several conditions to ensure the applicants’ cooperation and prevent interference with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 BNSS given the nature and gravity of the alleged offences.
- Whether the applicants pose a risk of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.
- Whether the existence of a civil suit relating to the same commercial transaction impacts the grant of criminal bail.
- Whether the applicants have any prior criminal antecedents that would preclude bail.
- Whether imposing conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS is appropriate to safeguard the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitas. 482, s. 483(2)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhitas. 316(4), s. 316(5), s. 318(4), s. 54, s. 60
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSSSection 483 BNSScommercial disputecriminal procedurebail jurisprudenceGujarat High Court
Judgment
R/CR.MA/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 25550
of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 25553 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 25595 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10275 of 2026
==========================================================
AFTAB ALAM S/O AHAMAD HUSSAIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIM M SAIYED, MS BUSRUN M PATHAN & MR MUSHIRALI H.
SAIYED, ADVOCATES for the Applicants
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent No. 1 – State
MS BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for Respondent No. 2 – Ori.Complainant
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 06/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of these applications under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short,
“BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in
the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11210002252360 of 2025, registered with the Sachin GIDC
Police Station, District : Surat, for the offences punishable
under Sections 316(5), 316(4), 318(4), 54 and 60 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/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
3. Learned advocates for the applicants submits that the
nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at
this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the
applicants will keep themselves available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.
3.1 The learned advocates for the applicants further states
that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may
be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, it is urged that these applications may be
allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.
4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State as well as
learned advocate Ms.Acharya for the original complainant
have opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence and requested not to entertain
these applications.
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
Page 2 of 6
R/CR.MA/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
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
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 dispute is regarding goods sold and
delivered; and that being commercial transaction, the same is
given a colour of criminal nature;
b) civil suit has been filed with respect to the said
transaction by the original complainant;
c) the entire allegations are in respect of accused No.1
viz., Dron Ravi Khanna; and that the Co-ordinate Bench,
while considering the regular bail, has also taken into
consideration that there is no allegation that said Dron Ravi
has received any money from the other co-accused;
Page 3 of 6
R/CR.MA/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
d) the applicants have no past antecedents;
e) the learned advocate for the applicants has assured that
the applicants 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
applications.
7. In the result, these applications are allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in
connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicants shall
be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with one surety of
like amount each on the following conditions that applicants:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
(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 them 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 13.07.2026 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
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/25550/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
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 applications.
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 applicants who are granted pre-arrest
bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in all the
matters. Direct service is permitted.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
M.H. DAVE/54
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 06/07/2026 17:12:32
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