SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 15499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
DINESHBHAI LAXMANBHAI VASAVAV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CR.MA/10959/2026



##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10959/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2026

0.5447791307237346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10959

of 2026

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

DINESHBHAI LAXMANBHAI VASAVA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

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

Appearance:

K T BELADIYA(9101) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 12/05/2026

ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the

respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed

to release on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the

FIR being C.R. No. 11199050251000 of 2025 registered with Valiya Police

Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable under the provisions of

Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 111(2)(b) of BNS.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has

nothing to do with the offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR but

based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an

accused. The applicant is very much available as and when his presence is

required and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides,

the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee

from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory

bail.

Page 1 of 4

Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 00:27:14 IST 2026

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/10959/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2026

0.5447791307237346

[3.0] 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. Therefore, she has requested to dismiss

the present application.

[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the

investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its

discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic

principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble 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

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/

her so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate

examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the

case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered

the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;

(2) No case of custodial interrogation made out by the prosecution.

(4) Now nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant.

(5) Learned APP has failed to point out any circumstances or possibility

of the applicant in the offence though he has two past antecedents.

(6) Based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as

an accused.

[5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State

of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench

Page 2 of 4

Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top