##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8858/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

0.8926225155779964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8858

of 2026

==========================================================

KARISHMA PRATIK PATEL

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR KAPILKUMAR S GIGLANI(10560) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS DIVYANGANA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

Date : 27/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. 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.11191011260087 of 2026, registered with the D.C.B. Police

Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under

Sections 316(2), 316(5), 336(2), 338 and 54 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNS’ for short).

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives

service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that

the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation

Page 1 of 6

Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 15:14:03 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8858/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

0.8926225155779964

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.

3.1 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

Page 2 of 6

Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 15:14:03 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8858/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

0.8926225155779964

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 applicant is not named in the FIR;

b) The present applicant happens to be the wife

of accused No.3 – Pratik Bharatbhai Patel;

b) The applicant has no past antecedents;

c) The learned advocate for the applicant has

assured that the applicant will not flee from

justice and would be available during

investigation as well as the trial.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others,

reported in