ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11207028240009/2024 registered with Halol Town Police Station, District: Panchmahal for the offences alleged therein.

2.1 The applicants, who are the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Case No. 870 of 2024 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, District Panchmahal, have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2.2 The aforesaid criminal case arises out of FIR being C.R. No. 11207028240009 of 2024 registered with Halol Town Police Station, District Panchmahal, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the trial commenced before the learned ACJM, Halol.

2.3 At the stage of trial, the complainant preferred an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking addition of charges pertaining to forgery against the present applicants. The learned ACJM, by order dated 17.03.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 870 of 2024, partly allowed the said application and directed addition of charges under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against all the applicants.

2.4 Pursuant to the addition of the aforesaid charges, more particularly Section 467 of the IPC, which is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, the learned ACJM issued a notice dated 24.03.2026 directing the applicants to remain personally present before the Court on 01.04.2026 for the purpose of being taken into judicial custody.

2.5 Apprehending arrest and custodial detention in view of the newly added non-bailable offence, the applicants preferred an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Halol. However, the learned Sessions Court, by order dated 21.04.2026, rejected the said application primarily on the ground of maintainability.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the applicants have preferred the present application before this Hon’ble Court.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicants further states that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.

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 gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conv