High Court of Gujarat
MOHAMMEDHASAN KHANUBHAI QURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- SANJEEV THAKER
Holding
The Court held that, given the applicant’s clean antecedents, the commercial nature of the dispute and the applicant’s assurances of cooperation, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted with appropriate conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Gujarat entertained an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Mohammedhasan Khanubhai Qureshi and another in connection with FIR No.11191011260083 alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, while the applicant’s counsel argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the applicant had no prior criminal record and would cooperate with the investigation. The Court examined the standard bail factors – nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents, flight risk and potential for evidence tampering – and, relying on precedents such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), concluded that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the Court ordered anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with a surety of equal amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with police, non‑interference with witnesses, residence restrictions and no travel abroad without permission. The order also clarified that the bail does not impede police investigation and that any violation of conditions may lead to arrest under Section 483(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the BNSS for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences justify denial of bail
- Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Whether imposing conditions on anticipatory bail is appropriate in the circumstances
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482, s. 483(2)
- Negotiable Instruments Acts. 138
Subjects
anticipatory bailSection 482 BNSSbail jurisprudenceflight riskevidence tamperingBhartiya Nyay Sanhitacriminal procedureGujarat High Court
Judgment
R/CR.MA/9693/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9693
of 2026
================================================================
MOHAMMEDHASAN KHANUBHAI QURESHI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
NIMIT Y SHUKLA(8338) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. 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.
11191011260083 of 2026, registered with DCB Police Station,
District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 54 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that 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.
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/9693/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2026
3.1 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.
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
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
Page 2 of 5
R/CR.MA/9693/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2026
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) considering the fact that the present dispute is
with respect to goods sold and delivered and the fact
that the proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act against the accused No.1.
b) the applicant has no past antecedents;
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.
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.
Page 3 of 5
R/CR.MA/9693/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2026
7. 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, 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 08.07.2026 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
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/9693/2026 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2026
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.
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 applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MANOJKUMAR RAI(HC01072), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/07/2026 14:53:54
Page 5 of 5
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anticipatory bail"Sign in to search