2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 15510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
PATHAN BABUKHAN BECHUBHAIV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9902 of 2026 | R/CR.MA/9902/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aniq A Kadri
For the Respondents: Dhwani Tripathi
Grant of anticipatory bail to a senior citizen with no criminal antecedents where the accusation is based on a co-accused's statement and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.
Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 117(2), 296, 254, 109, 85, 74, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The applicant, a senior citizen, was not initially named in the FIR but was subsequently arraigned based on a co-accused's statement. The court found that the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The court examined whether the nature and gravity of the accusation warranted custodial interrogation. It was reasoned that since no recovery was required and the role attributed was limited to mental harassment, the applicant's presence could be secured without arrest. The court relied on established principles regarding the exercise of discretion in bail applications. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly.
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. 11191048260082 of 2026 registered with Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 117(2), 296 and 254 of BNS and subsequently added Sections 109 , 85, 74 and 115(2) of BNS.
[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. Initially the applicant was not named in the FIR but based on the statement of the co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused. The applicant is senior citizen and 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.
[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. The applicant used to torture and cause mental harassment to the victim. 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) Applicant is senior citizen and not having any past antecedent;
(3) No case of custodial interrogation made out by the prosecution.
(4) Now nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant.
(5) Except causing mental harassment and torture, no specific role is attributed to the applicant.
(6) No past antecedent.
(7) 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 in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.
[6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191048260082 of 2026 registered with Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety o