JAIN VISHAL HEMENDRABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/26499/2025                          ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                  BAIL) NO. 26499 of 2025

================================================
            JAIN VISHAL HEMENDRABHAI
                        Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH S BAROT(3551) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PAWAN A BAROT(6455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                            Date : 06/04/2026

                            ORAL ORDER


1.       Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.


2.       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. 11188010250519 of 2025, registered
with Shamlaji Police Station, District: Arvalli for the offences
punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81 and 83 of the Gujarat
Prohibition Act, 1949.


                                 Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.MA/26499/2025                           ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




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 gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously


                                  Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/26499/2025                            ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




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, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:


        a)      the applicant is not named in the FIR;

        b)  name of the applicant surfaced in the crime in question
        upon a statement made by co-accused, namely Ketan
        Dhamecha, who is enlarged on regular bail;

        c)    though applicant has some past antecedents, however,
        he is released on bail therein. Further, in the case on hand,
        no recovery or discovery is made at the instance of the
        applicant;

        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 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


                                  Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.MA/26499/2025                           ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




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;

        (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
        15.04.2026 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;

                                Page 4 of 5
        R/CR.MA/26499/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




            (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.


                                                                                             [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
  hiren/DB/1/14tss6426




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 14:31:58




                                                        Page 5 of 5