IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8643 of 2026 ==========================================================

GURUDEVSINGH CHARANJITSINGH GILL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AKSHAY S JAIN(12249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 17/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the respondent – State.

2. 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. 11191036260030 of 2026, registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 324(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. The learned advocate Mr. Chandrashekhar Yadav appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Akshay S. Jain for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused, and arrest was apprehended, the applicant herein had filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, by Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1885 of 2026, which was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the allegations in the FIR reveal that on 09.03.2026, near GLS College Gate No.8, the applicant alongwith two persons allegedly came in a Fortuner vehicle carrying weapons and had attacked the complainant. It is further alleged that in the attempt the glass of the complainant’s Thar vehicle was damaged, and the complainant was threatened of his life, where after the complainant allegedly ran away. That, on the plain reading of the complaint, it is apparently clear that no injury was caused by the present applicant, no treatment was taken by the complainant; the incident was at best a verbal altercation. The learned Sessions Court nevertheless rejected the application on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, the affidavit of the investigating officer asserting antecedents, pendency of investigation, and the perceived need for custodial interrogation.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav would further submit that the applicant is an young innocent boy and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that learned Sessions Court failed to test the FIR allegations on the settled principle that, at the stage of anticipatory bail also, the Court is required to examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are even prima facie disclosed and whether arrest is truly warranted in the facts of the case. He would also submit that even if the allegations recorded in the impugned order are taken at their face value, the ingredients of the gravest non-bailable accusations are not made out. The allegations as reproduced do not disclose a clear, definite, or credible factual foundation to infer a real intention to cause death, which is the core requirement for an offence premised on an intention to kill. Mere use of strong words, anger, or an altercation, without corresponding injury, without medical treatment, and without any material showing a sustained or effective murderous assault, cannot be itself justify elevating the matter into an accusation carrying the element of intention to kill.

3.2. Learned advocate would relied on the following judgments in support of his case:

1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SSC 694

2. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565

3. Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in [2025] 10 S.C.R. 21