MARSHAL KANUBHAI SHARKHEDIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/6220/2026                        ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 6220 of 2026

================================================
        MARSHAL KANUBHAI SHARKHEDI & ANR.
                        Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                          Date : 16/03/2026

                           ORAL ORDER

1.      Learned advocate for the applicant has tendered the draft
amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith.


2.      Learned advocate Ms. Sonal J. Bhavsar states that she has
instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant. She
shall file her Vakalatnama in due course, which the registry shall
accept.


3.      Rule. Learned advocates for the respondents waive service.



                               Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/6220/2026                          ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




4.      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. 11210008250723 of 2025,
registered with Sarthana Police Station, District: Surat City for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114.


5.      At the outset, the learned advocate for the applicant would
submit that the applicant and the de facto complainant were the
partners and now, the matter is settled between the parties and the
de facto complainant has no objection if the present application is
granted. The learned advocate for the de facto complainant affirms
the said proposition and reiterated that the de facto complainant
has no objection if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail.


5.1     The learned advocate for the applicant submits that, even
otherwise, 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.


5.2     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.


                                Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.MA/6220/2026                               ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




6.     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.


7.     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 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 dispute, prima facie, appears to be civil in nature;

       b)       indisputably,    the    applicant   and     the     de     facto


                                   Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/6220/2026                           ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




       complainant were the partners and as confirmed by the
       learned advocate for the de facto complainant, the matter is
       settled between the parties and the complainant has no
       objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant;

       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.


8.     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.


9.     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,


                                 Page 4 of 6
      R/CR.MA/6220/2026                            ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




        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
        30.03.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the
        Investigating Officer shall ensure that no unnecessary
        harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;

        (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 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.


9.1     At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
bail application.


10.     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

                                 Page 5 of 6
           R/CR.MA/6220/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




    investigative agency to investigate into the charges against the
    applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.


    11.        Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
    is permitted.


                                                                                               [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
    hiren/DB/1/3tss16326




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 16/03/2026 14:14:55



                                                           Page 6 of 6