IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 26181 of 2025 ==========================================================

IMRAN @ IMRAN GADDI AMIRUDDIN SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AMIT D SHAH(11232) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1.) The present application is a second successive anticipatory bail application filed after withdrawal of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 19308/2025 by order dated 23.09.2025. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210048250355 of 2025 registered with Urma Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 210(2), 137(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Vyas on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Amit D. Shah for the applicant and learned APP Mr.

Rohan Shah for Respondent – State.

3.) Learned advocate Ms. Vyas on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Amit D. Shah for the applicant submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 19.05.2025, whereas the F.I.R was registered on 01.06.2025, resulting in a delay of 12 days. She further submits that the applicant has produced documentary evidence before this Court with the sole intent to show that at the time of commission of crime, he was not present at the place occurrence. Along with the application, a detailed affidavit and supporting documents have been placed on record, which clearly crystallise the position of fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated with the sole intention to harass him. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced only on the basis of disclosure made by the co- accused before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that earlier application preferred by the applicant were not entertained by this Court, however, the present successive anticipatory bail application has been filed by placing all relevant and material documents on record to establish that at the time of occurrence of the incident, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence.

3.1) Considering the above stated totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned advocate submits that the present application deserves to be entertained. She further submits that the Trial Court has rejected the bail application solely on the ground of past antecedents of the applicant, whereas it is a settled proposition of law that at that time of considering the bail application, Court is required to examine the role attributed to the accused in the commission of the offence. In the present case, it is contended that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the present bail application is required to be entertained.

4.) Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah vehemently objected the present application and submitted that name as well as his specific role is clearly reflected from the body of the F.I.R. He further submits that this application is a successive bail, as earlier application preferred by the applicant were not entertained by this Court after due consideration of the merits of the case. He further submits that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has made intensive search and collected CCTV footages from the vicinity area, which clearly establishes the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence and his active participation in the commission of offence. It is also submitted that the applicant has more than six past antecedents registered against him. Considering the a