##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3228/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2026

0.47329183803121433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

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

3228 of 2026

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

SHAKTISINH RAJENDRASINH VAGHELA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

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

Appearance

MR V A ZALA(11441) 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

[1] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for

and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[2] 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.

11198020250832 of 2025 registered with Ghogha Police

Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections

65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act.

[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the

applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant was not found

Page 1 of 5

Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 00:33:40 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3228/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2026

0.47329183803121433

at the place of offence during the raid, and there is no recovery

made from him personally and there is no previous criminal

antecedents. It is further submitted that the car carrying the

contraband liquor belongs to the sister of the present applicant.

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.

[4] 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. Custodial

interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, he has

requested to dismiss the present application.

[5] 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

Page 2 of 5

Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 00:33:40 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3228/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2026

0.47329183803121433

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.

[6] 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 in

the case of Sh