IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 24179 of 2025 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 09/12/2025 in R/CR.MA/24179/2025 ]

==========================================================

RAVIRAJSINH KANAKSINH VAGHELA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE WITH MR ABHISHEKKUMAR C MALVI(9941) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 16/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Perused the Speaking to Minutes note.

2. The order dated 09.12.2025 passed in the captioned application has been wrongly transcribed. The same is corrected and the corrected order dated 09.12.2025 shall read as under:

“

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of the present 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 No. 11198047250492 of 2025 registered with Shihor Police Station, Bhavnagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing with Mr.

Abhishekkumar Malvi, learned advocate for the applicant submits that, the nature of allegations are such for which, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that, the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and the trial, and will not flee from justice. He submits that, there are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant. He also submits that, the main accused has already been granted bail and the other co-

accused have been protected in quashing petitions.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that, the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing him on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate therefore submitted that, considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

5. 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.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble 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 anticipatory 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 anticipatory bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case, which may prejudice the accused should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(A) The applicant was not named in the FIR. He has no criminal antecedents. He was working as office boy in the firm of the main accused Ketan Dave.

(B) The co-accused Ketan Dave and Pravin Chauhan have been granted regular bail by this court vide orders dated 10.11.2025 and 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 19563 of 2025 and 11436 of

2025 respectively.

(C) Further, two co-accused namely Mitul Mehta and Parth Teraiya have been granted interim relief by way of orders in the