BHARGAV LAKSHMANBHAI BAGODARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/9364/2026                          ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 9364 of 2026
                           With
        R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 9200 of 2026

================================================
        BHARGAV LAKSHMANBHAI BAGODARIYA
                          Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 21/04/2026

                           ORAL ORDER


1.      As both the matters arise out of the same FIR, they are heard
together and are being decided by this common order.


2.      Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.


3.      By way of these applications 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



                                Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/9364/2026                         ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11824005260237 of 2026,
registered with Ukai Police Station, District: Tapi for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 467 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


4.      Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the 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.


4.1     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 these applications may be allowed
and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.


5.      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 these applications.


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


                               Page 2 of 6
   R/CR.MA/9364/2026                            ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




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 alleged incident occurred between 16.04.2021 and
      14.07.2021, however, the FIR in question is registered only on
      17.03.2026 and no plausible reasons is forthcoming on record
      for such a delay. Further, a perusal of the FIR, more
      particularly, column No. 8 thereof, it is mentioned that after
      preliminary inquiry since culpability/irregularity found, FIR
      is lodged;

      b)    further, from a perusal of order dated 01.04.2023
      passed by the DDO, Tapi at Vyara it appears that applicant
      in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9364 of 2026 is exonerated
      for such technical irregularity of issuance of cheques prior to
      acceptance of his resignation as the work was completed and
      the said explanation was accepted by the DDO, Tapi at
      Vyara;

      c)      the offence, prima facie appears to be technical in

                               Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/9364/2026                             ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




       nature;

       d)     it is stated that the funds were utilized for the actual
       public works and hence, the ingredients of offence are not
       satisfied;

       e)   the works in question were unanimously approved in
       Gram Panchayat meeting held on 29.10.2020 and it was not
       an unilateral decision;

       f)    the cheques were allegedly signed after resignation on
       23.03.2021 as Sarpanch, by the applicant in Criminal Misc.
       Application No. 9200 of 2026, however, admittedly, his
       resignation is accepted on 15.04.2021;

       g)       the applicants stated to have no past antecedents;

       h)    the learned advocate for the applicants has assured
       that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be
       available during investigation as well as the trial.


7.     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
applications.


8.     In the result, these applications are allowed by directing that
in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in connection

                                  Page 4 of 6
   R/CR.MA/9364/2026                          ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




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 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
     30.04.2026 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 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.



                              Page 5 of 6
        R/CR.MA/9364/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026




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


 9.         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.


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


                                                                                           [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
 hiren/SB/1/3 and DB/1/15tss21426




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 21/04/2026 14:03:02




                                                       Page 6 of 6