KALPESHBHAI KANAKSINH GOHILversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The applicant, Kalpeshbhai Kanakshinh Gohil, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Gujarat High Court. The applicant's counsel failed to appear on several scheduled dates (16.06.2026, 24.06.2026, 01.07.2026, 22.07.2026) and made no request for adjournment, indicating a loss of interest in pursuing the matter. On 19.08.2026, the Court observed the absence of any request for further adjournment and dismissed the application for want of prosecution. The Court, however, granted the applicant liberty to file a fresh application within one month if the cause still subsists. No substantive merits of the bail claim were examined due to procedural default.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when an anticipatory bail applicant fails to appear and makes no request for adjournment?
- Can the applicant be permitted to re‑file the anticipatory bail application after dismissal for want of prosecution?
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/7624/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7624
of 2026
==========================================================
KALPESHBHAI KANAKSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. NAMRATA S. SINGH(19742) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 19/08/2026
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
In view of consistent absent by the learned
advocate for the applicant i.e. on 16.06.2026, 24.06.2026,
01.07.2026 and 22.07.2026 and in absence of any request
made on behalf of the learned advocate for the applicant for
adjournment, it seems that the applicant has lost interest to
pursue this application.
Today also, when the matter is called out, neither
the learned advocate for the applicant appears nor any
request is made on her behalf for adjournment. Therefore,
this Court has no option but to dismiss this matter for want
of prosecution.
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/7624/2026 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2026
Accordingly, this application is dismissed for want
of prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to
file appropriate application, if cause survives, within a
reasonable time of one month.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
M.H. DAVE/16
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHESHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL DAVE(HC00193), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/08/2026 14:57:42
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.