IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 23010 of 2025 ==========================================================

DILIPBHAI JODHABHAI BHARVAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MANOJ S JOSHI(2961) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MITA S PANCHAL(530) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 24/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant who is the husband of the deceased Ridhhiben, is apprehending arrest at the hands of Vastrapur Police, in view of the FIR, which came to be registered by C.R. No.11191020250479 of 2025 on 12.10.2025 under Sections 108, 85, 89 and 54 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has preferred the present application praying for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

2. The applicant by way of his application has stated that, he is innocent and has not committed any offence. There was no proximate cause leading to the suicide of deceased Ridhhiben. He had never instigated deceased Ridhhiben to commit suicide. The complainant had made bogus allegations with a view to falsely implicate him in the offence, which he had never committed. Hence, he has prayed to allow the application and enlarge him on anticipatory bail as prayed for. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mita Panchal, on behalf of the applicant, who has reiterated the averments of the application. Ms. Panchal has submitted that, all the allegations mentioned in the FIR are general in nature for which custodial interrogation is not required. There is no mens rea on part of the applicant and the only allegations in the FIR are pertaining to dowry which are unsubstantiated. According to Ms. Panchal, though it is alleged in the FIR that, it was the applicant and other co-accused who have forced the deceased Ridhhiben to abort her foetus, in fact, the ultrasound examination of her uterus had revealed cardiac effect as obvious fetal anomalies, pursuant to which, such foetus was aborted and not otherwise.

3.1. Learned advocate Ms. Panchal has further submitted that, there are absolutely no allegations and no evidence against the present applicant which would implicate him in the offence. The installments of the Thar vehicle which was purchased by the applicant and his brother Nimesh i.e. co-accysed were paid by them, which fact can be gathered from the bank receipts and the printouts of statements of bank account. Upon being granted anticipatory bail, the applicant would cooperate with the investigation agency. Hence, this application should be allowed.

3.2. Learned advocate Ms. Panchal, in support of her oral arguments, has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and another delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 2023, the oral order pronounced in Criminal Misc. No.23128 of 2025 by this Court and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.17439 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.14647 of 2024.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. B. Ghateshaniya on behalf of the original complainant who has strongly opposed this application stating that, as of now the Court is only required to see whether there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence or not. The Court is not required dwell upon and delve into the merits of the case. According to Mr. Ghateshaniya, the deceased Riddhiben was constantly harassed by the applicant and her in-laws under the pretext that, she was dark complexioned and she had not brought any dowry from her parents. Mr. Ghateshaniya has also drawn the attention of the court to the fact that, when the deceased had committed suici