aaaaaaaa IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 5787 of 2026 ==========================================================

ANNIRUDHSINH @ ANOPSINH VISHUBHA SODHA(ANIRUDDHSINH VISHUBHA SODHA)

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

Appearance:

MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 09/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Issue Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for Respondent – State.

2. By way of the present application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, the Applicant has approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail to him in the event of his arrest in connection with offence registered as CR No. 11213042240130 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024 filed before the Paddhari Police Station, District – Rajkot, Rural for the offence under Section 65(a), 65(c), 81, 98(2) and 116B of the Prohibition Act.

3. The brief facts in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 On 14.03.2024, the complainant received secret information that Champak @ Digo Polabhai Patel was transferring Indian Made English Liquor at the house situated on the land of Champak’s relative, namely Ashok Padariya, located behind Aji Dam-3. The complainant conducted a raid at the said place. During the raid, three persons ran away from the spot. Indian Made English Liquor comprising a total of 5098 bottles, worth Rs. 13,01,285/-, one vehicle worth Rs. 2,50,000/-, and iron boxes were also seized. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before Padadhari Police Station, District Rajkot Rural, for the offences under the sections mentioned hereinabove.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that no name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR dated 14.03.2024, and it is only based on the statement of the co- accused that the present Applicant has been implicated in the said case. Learned Advocate fairly states that the Applicant has past criminal antecedents, and that the co- accused in the present case have also been enlarged on bail. The past criminal antecedents of the present Applicant are as follows:-

5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant further submits that the Applicant has been wrongly implicated and has not committed any offence, either directly or indirectly, as alleged in the complaint, and his name is not mentioned in the FIR. The Applicant was not found in conscious possession of the Muddamal, and he is not the owner of the land from where the Muddamal was seized. His name was disclosed only from the statement of the co-accused. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Chintan Dave for the Respondent – State states that apart from the above- mentioned past criminal antecedents, the present Applicant is also involved in the present case dated 14.03.2024 registered with the Paddhari Police Station, District – Rajkot Rural, and argued to reject the present application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

8. Section 482 of BNSS provides for bail in anticipation of arrest where any person has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-

bailable offence.

9. Learned Advocate for the Applicant could not dislodge the fact that the complaint is of 2024, wherein the chargesheet was filed on 09.05.2024 before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate bearing No.136/2024, and a supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 136A/2024 was also filed against Accused Nos. 4 and 7 on 26.10.2024.

10. Learned Advocate has submitted that the co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail; however, on the ground of parity, anticipatory bail cannot be granted since the co- accused have been released on regular bail. In the papers of the charge sheet, the accused is shown as absconding since his name is reflected in Column No. 2. The present case was registered in