IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6220 of 2026 ================================================

MARSHAL KANUBHAI SHARKHEDI & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================

Appearance:

MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 16/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate for the applicant has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft.

Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Learned advocate Ms. Sonal J. Bhavsar states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant. She shall file her Vakalatnama in due course, which the registry shall accept.

3. Rule. Learned advocates for the respondents waive service.

4. 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. 11210008250723 of 2025, registered with Sarthana Police Station, District: Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 114.

5. At the outset, the learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the de facto complainant were the partners and now, the matter is settled between the parties and the de facto complainant has no objection if the present application is granted. The learned advocate for the de facto complainant affirms the said proposition and reiterated that the de facto complainant has no objection if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail.

5.1 The learned advocate for the applicant submits that, even otherwise, 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.

5.2 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 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 dispute, prima facie, appears to be civil in nature;

b) indisputably, the applicant and the de facto complainant were the partners and as confirmed by the learned advocate for the de facto complainant, the matter is settled between the parties and the complainant has no objection if