PRIYANSHIKUMARI PRADIPBHAI CHAUDHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                          ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 7604 of 2026

================================================
      PRIYANSHIKUMARI PRADIPBHAI CHAUDHARI
                        Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS TRISHLA B SHETH(11488) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 05/05/2026

                           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. 11214032260174 of 2026, registered
with Mandvi Police Station, District: Surat (Rural) for the offences
punishable under Sections 140(2), 127(2), 108 and 54 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).


                               Page 1 of 12
      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                           ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




3.      Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are all the accused
named in the FIR, in connivance with each other, kidnapped
deceased Jenil, who happens to be the son of the de facto
complainant on the count that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were
in relationship with each other and original accused No. 4, who
was in relationship with deceased Jenil, had their photographs in
her mobile, which deceased Jenil allegedly took away from her
mobile without her knowledge and thereafter, called the original
accused No. 3 with whom, original accused No. 2 got married, and
sent him the said photographs. The deceased allegedly also asked
for money from original accused No. 3.           Hence, the accused
persons allegedly kidnapped the deceased, tortured and forced to
confess and apologize.        They also shot such a video of the
deceased. Thereafter, all the accused, called the deceased at the
place of incident, they talked and thereafter, the deceased
committed suicide by jumping into a canal. Accordingly, for the
alleged offence, FIR in question came to be registered.


4.      Heard, Mr. Kishan Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent – State.


4.1        Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant is an innocent lady and falsely implicated in the crime in
question. He submitted that no overt act has been committed by
the present applicant nor any specific role attributed to her in the


                                Page 2 of 12
      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                          ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




commission of crime in question.


4.2     The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
there is no mens rea at all for commission of such a crime. Further,
the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled inasmuch as
there is nothing on record to show that the applicant instigated
and/or created such a situation so as to force the deceased to take
away his life.


4.3     The learned advocate for the applicant further submit that
the applicant neither had kidnapped the deceased nor confined
him illegally. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted
that the de facto complainant himself is a hearsay witness and he
has no personal knowledge about the incident.


4.4     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 herself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.


4.5     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 3 of 12
      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                              ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




4.6     In support of his arguments, the learned advocate for the
applicant relied upon following decisions of the Apex Court as
well as of this Court:


        i)   Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC
        801;

        ii)  Kumar alias Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 19
        SCC 308;

        iii) Mariano Anto Bruno and Another v. Inspector of Police,
        (2023) 15 SCC 560;

        iv) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajashthan and Another, (2021) 19
        SCC 144;

        v)    Shabbir Hussai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,
        (2021) 17 SCC 807;

        vi)      Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200;

        vii) Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1
        SCC 707;

        viii) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618;

        ix) Mali Vasantkumar Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC
        OnLine Guj 1322;

        x)    Rasilaba Bharatsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and Another,
        2024 SCC OnLine Guj 2752;

        xi) Kamruddin Samsuddin Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and
        Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 1526;

        xii) Poonam Anshul Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another,
        2024 SCC OnLine Guj 1556.

                                   Page 4 of 12
      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




5.      Conversely,       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.


5.1     The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the accused keeping grudge of the fact that the deceased sending
photographs of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were in
relationship, to the original accused No. 3 with whom, the original
accused No. 2 married later, on Instagram, kidnapped the
deceased, tortured him and firstly made him to apologize for such
an act and thereafter, they gathered at the place of incident and
after some time, the deceased commits suicide.                    It is further
submitted that the deceased had taken those photographs from the
mobile phone of the present applicant allegedly, without her
knowledge and thereafter, stated to have sent to the original
accused No. 3 and allegedly, also demanded money. Thus, all the
accused had a reason behind crime in question. Further, presence
of the accused at the place of incident is undisputed.


5.2     Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that, so far as present applicant is concerned, her conduct speak
volumes about the crime inasmuch as, as per her version only,
despite she knew that the deceased jumped into the canal, she left
the place, though she was in relationship with the deceased for
long. Further, after the incident, she deleted all the call details as


                                    Page 5 of 12
     R/CR.MA/7604/2026                            ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




well as the messages from her mobile. Making above submissions,
investigation is going on and is at a crucial stage and accordingly,
it is urged that this being an anticipatory bail application, the same
may not be entertained.


6.     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 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)       unlike the "normal wear and tear of life" described in
       referred judgments, the prosecution details a pre-planned
       kidnapping and forced apology video. The presence of the


                                 Page 6 of 12
R/CR.MA/7604/2026                              ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




  applicant at the canal, the final location before suicide,
  suggests a continuous chain of harassment rather than a
  remote or accidental provocation;


  b)       admittedly, soon after the accused and the deceased
  met and while the applicant was leaving the place of
  incident, deceased committed suicide;


  c)       in the present case, the motive is explicitly established
  (retaliation for the leaked Instagram photos). Furthermore,
  the applicant’s action of deleting call logs and messages and
  the factum of main accused asking the present applicant to
  deny her presence at the scene of offfence creates a prima facie
  case of "guilty mind", though the present applicant has also
  given Accidental Death report suggesting her presence;


  d)       the applicant’s conduct here transcends a mere
  relationship. Her hostile behaviour at the scene—leaving a
  long-term partner after deceased jumped into a canal
  without seeking immediate physical help, provides a factual
  basis for "instigation by conduct" that distinguishes her act
  from the cited cases. What transpired between the deceased,
  main accused and the present applicant can only be elicited
  during custodial interrogation;


  e)       the FIR was registered promptly by the complainant


                             Page 7 of 12
R/CR.MA/7604/2026                                ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




  who is the father of the deceased though based on the facts
  narrated by the main accused, however, the "Last Seen"
  theory is firmly established by the applicant's own presence.
  The lack of a suicide note does not absolve the applicant
  when the physical evidence (the deleted messages and the
  kidnapping narrative) points toward a high degree of
  custodial necessity. The discrepancies in narration of factual
  aspect       by   the   present    applicant   requires       custodial
  interrogation;


  f)       so far as ingredients of offence of abetment are
  concerned, from the events prior to occurrence of incident of
  suicide by the deceased, speak otherwise for the reason that,
  the deceased allegedly was kidnapped, he was kept hostage,
  made to apologize for sending the photographs of accused
  Nos. 1 and 2, which were taken by deceased allegedly
  without knowledge of the present applicant from her mobile
  phone, to the accused No. 3 and also for asking for money
  therefor and thus, all the accused, prima facie appear to have
  motive and mens rea for the crime in question;


  g)       the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar
  Bansal (supra) in para 23, has observed as under:


           “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot
           be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
           The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations,


                             Page 8 of 12
R/CR.MA/7604/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




           which the court should keep in mind while considering the
           plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the
           cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over
           solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes,
           defeat the cause of public justice.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)


  h)       the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
  Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, reported in
  2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus:


           “9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid
           down by the apex court and considering the averments made
           in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after
           considering the observations made by the learned sessions
           judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that
           custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
           anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial
           interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself,
           cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this
           is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in
           favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this
           application is required to be rejected.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)


  i)       so far as decisions relied on by the learned advocate for
  the applicant, as referred at serial Nos. (i) to (viii) in
  paragraph 4.6, are concerned, there cannot be any dispute
  with regard to the ratio laid down in the same. Nonetheless,
  a perusal of the same reveals that they all are passed after
  conviction upon full-fledged trial and hence, the same are of
  no help to the applicant herein inasmuch as, this is an



                               Page 9 of 12
R/CR.MA/7604/2026                              ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




  anticipatory bail application, wherein, investigation is still
  going on and facts and circumstances of the case suggest
  necessity of custodial interrogation to churn out the truth;


  j)       so far as decisions relied on by the learned advocate for
  the applicant, as referred at serial Nos. (ix) to (xii) in
  paragraph 4.6, are concerned which are of the co-ordinate
  Benches of this Court and persuasive in nature, the same are,
  also not applicable to the case on hand, for the reason that, so
  far as decision in Mali Vasantkumar Ramjibhai (supra) is
  concerned, the Court upon going through the papers on
  record, came to a specific conclusion that there is no mens rea.
  Further, the Court also noted that there was nothing to
  recover or discover.         However, in the instant case, as
  observed earlier, there prima facie appears to be motive and
  mens rea and the investigation is underway and at a crucial
  stage. So far as decision in Rasilaba Bharatsinh Jadeja (supra) is
  concerned, money was lent to the deceased through her
  husband and considering the said aspect, the Court
  considered the anticipatory bail application.             So far as
  decision in Kamruddin Samsuddin Saiyed (supra) is concerned,
  the applicant stated to have illicit relations with the wife of
  the deceased, but for want of any overt act, the Court
  disbelieved and considered anticipatory bail application. In
  the instant case, the presence of the applicant at the place of
  incident is undisputed; further, as said earlier, the conduct of


                             Page 10 of 12
      R/CR.MA/7604/2026                            ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




        the applicant in the entire episode is doubtful and hence, the
        said decision is of no help to the applicant. So far as decision
        in Poonam Anshul Singh (supra) is concerned, the facts are
        totally different. In the said case, FIR was filed after a delay
        of three months. Further there was no allegation against the
        applicant therein in the suicide note. However, in the case
        on hand, as referred to herein above, the presence of the
        applicant at the place of incident; relations between the
        deceased and the applicant; the applicant was lastly with the
        deceased together with the co-accused etc.; all these facts
        have been crystallized.        Accordingly, that decision also
        would of no avail to the applicant herein.


        k)       Given the gravity of the kidnapping and the potential
        destruction of digital evidence (as seen in the deleted logs),
        granting bail based on the cited judgments which are not
        applicable to the facts of the case would "defeat the cause of
        public justice" and "paralyse the investigation" while it is still
        at a nascent stage of discovery.


7.      For the forgoing reasons and discussion, in the considered
opinion of the Court, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected, accordingly.
Rule is discharged.


7.1     It goes without saying that the trial Court shall not be


                                 Page 11 of 12
                  R/CR.MA/7604/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026




           influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court
           which are solely made for the purpose of dealing the present
           application.


                                                                                                      [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
           hiren/SB/1/9tss5526




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 05/05/2026 11:13:42


                                                                Page 12 of 12