DIPENKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL DAMORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/2989/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2989
                          of 2026
==========================================================
                          DIPENKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL DAMOR
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                 Date : 08/04/2026

                                  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.
11216009250632 of 2025, registered with Mansa Police
Station, District: Gandhinagar for the o5ences punishable
under Sections 409,465,468,471,406,420 and 114 of the IPC.


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 8ee from justice.


3.1     The learned advocate for the applicant further states that


                                     Page 1 of 5
      R/CR.MA/2989/2026                       ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026




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.


3.2 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that,
even from reading the entire FIR, the amount of Rs. 31,700/- as
alleged in the FIR has not been swindled away for single day,
however, it is only that the Applicant would not have to face
the music on 25.05.2022 that V.M. Rathod, Inspector of Post
O=ce, Viramgam, would have found that the amount of cash is
above the threshold limit permitted. That the Applicant had
indulged into withdrawing the said amount by putting thump
impression, however, has no mens rea and therefore, has
argued to allow the present application.



3.3 He further submitted that the present applicant has been
dismissed from service and, as a result, has e5ectively
su5ered civil death.


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 o5ence and requested not to entertain this application.


4.1     Learned APP further submits that the factum of forging
the thumb impression of various widow is not denied and
therefore, the seriousness of o5ence does not get diluted and



                              Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/2989/2026                            ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026




thus, argued that the Applicant would require for e5ective
interrogation and thus, prayed to reject the said 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 o5ence; (iii) the possibility
of the applicant to 8ee 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)    Even from reading of the FIR, it transpires that the
present Applicant in connivance with co-accused had placed
thumb impression on withdrawal slips of various widow for
reduction of the cash on hand beyond the threshold permitted
limit by the postal department.

b)     the applicant has no past antecedents;

c)     the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that


                                 Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.MA/2989/2026                         ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026




the applicant will not 8ee from justice and would be available
during investigation as well as the trial.

d)     He is already dismissed from the service.

e)    No custodial interrogation is required because entire case
is based on documentary evidence.

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 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 o=cer;

       (c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
       and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or


                              Page 4 of 5
           R/CR.MA/2989/2026                                                                     ORDER DATED: 08/04/2026




               yet to be collected by the police;

               (d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
               on 20.04.2026 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 o=cer and the court
               concerned and shall not change residence till the Enal
               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 in8uence
               outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.

   7.1         At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be in8uenced 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)
   MMP


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/04/2026
17:21:07




                                                               Page 5 of 5