IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 4829 of 2026 ========================================================

PINAJBEN @ MENABEN SAHIDBHAI BHAS Versus STTE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MS ANUSHREE PANDEY(11733) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 26/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Anushree Pandey on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as lady accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198065260021 of 2026 registered with Vallabhipur Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85, 54 of Bhartirya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 before filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is not filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The allegation being that the accused had abetted/incited the deceased to commit suicide.

(ii) The fact of the present applicant being elder sister-in-law of the deceased and whereas general allegations being levelled against the present applicant.

(iii) The fact of the said allegations also being levelled basis some information which the complainant had received from her relatives.

(iv) Prima facie it would appear that the present applicant, may not be involved in the offence more particularly since the offence as it appears from the reading of the complaint is co-relatable to the role of the husband, who had not kept his promise of sending the deceased back to her residence after a few days.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198065260021 of 2026 registered with Vallabhipur Police Station, Bhavnagar on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty o