SURESHBHAI PARSOTTAMDAS NAYAKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/718/2025                                        ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 718
                           of 2025

==========================================================
                SURESHBHAI PARSOTTAMDAS NAYAK & ANR.
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                  Date : 28/07/2026

                                   ORAL ORDER


1.     By way of this application 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.11206005210315            of   2021,     registered       with     Bavlu      Police

Station, District: Mahesana for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 504 and

506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.



2.     Rule.            Learned   Additional        Public    Prosecutor         waives

service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.



3.     Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the



                                      Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/718/2025                                        ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




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 advocate 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 this application 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 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



                                          Page 2 of 6
      R/CR.MA/718/2025                                          ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




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)      that     the     applicant    no.1     was         a   Circle      Officer        and

applicant no.2 was E-Dhara Officer;

b) the applicants have not been named in the FIR and they

were Government Servants and the principal accused who
have been named in the FIR, who are beneficiaries of the

said transaction have been granted anticipatory bail by the

Coordinate Bench;

c) the role attributed to the present applicants is of certifying

the entries and the present applicants have already retired

from their services and at the time of filing the present

anticipatory        bail,   the   applicant         no.1       was    67    years         and

applicant no.2 was 65 years;

d)      the learned advocate for the applicants has assured that

the    applicants        will   not   flee   from      justice       and      would        be



                                      Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/718/2025                                             ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




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
application.



7.     In the result, this application is 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;



       (b)     shall         not    directly       or     indirectly          make          any

       inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted



                                         Page 4 of 6
R/CR.MA/718/2025                                              ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




  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 04.08.2026 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

  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,



                                    Page 5 of 6
          R/CR.MA/718/2025                                                 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2026




             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 applicants who are granted pre-arrest

    bail.



    9.       Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.                                       Direct

    service is permitted.



                                                                         (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
    URIL RANA




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RANA URIL K(HC01406), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/07/2026 17:10:49




                                                  Page 6 of 6