1. Anticipatory bail application concerning allegations of offences involving property disputes and lack of written agreement. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 35531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J. Thaker, J
Yashwant Bansilal Inani – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 22421 of 2026
Important Points
The court granted anticipatory bail by considering the civil nature of the property dispute, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, and the voluntary offer to deposit the disputed amount, adhering to established Apex Court guidelines on bail.
Subject
Criminal - Bail
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482, S.483(2)
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita: S.316(2), S.318(4), S.351(3), S.54
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita: S.316(2), S.318(4), S.351(3), S.54
Headnote
(A) Anticipatory Bail - Factors for Consideration - The court must exercise discretion judiciously by considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and whether the accusation was made to humiliate the applicant. (Para 5)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Civil Nature of Dispute - Where the dispute primarily concerns property transactions and bank entries, and the applicant expresses willingness to deposit the disputed amount, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a matter arising from a property transaction dispute.
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Civil Nature of Dispute - Where the dispute primarily concerns property transactions and bank entries, and the applicant expresses willingness to deposit the disputed amount, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a matter arising from a property transaction dispute.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhruv Toliya
For the Respondents: Rohan Shah, Rajat R Gadhvi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhruv Toliya
For the Respondents: Rohan Shah, Rajat R Gadhvi
Table of Contents
2. Applicant contends custodial interrogation is unnecessary, promising cooperation and deposit of disputed amounts; state opposes, citing gravity of offences and the need for rigorous investigation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court weighed the gravity of accusations, absence of criminal antecedents, willingness to deposit disputed amounts, and the necessity of personal liberty against investigative requirements. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Anticipatory bail is granted balancing the individual's liberty and investigative needs, subject to stringent conditions including cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and judicial deposit of disputed funds. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Application allowed, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions including furnishing personal bond, cooperation, non-tampering, and depositing disputed amounts with the court. (Para 7 , 9 )
6. What factors guide the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail?
Courts assess the nature and gravity of accusation, applicant's antecedents, risks of absconding or tampering with evidence, and whether the arrest serves the object of humiliation. (Para 5 )
7. Can the court impose financial conditions as a requirement for anticipatory bail?
Yes, courts may direct the deposit of disputed amounts to balance the interests of the complainant and the accused while securing his presence during investigation. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Does an order of anticipatory bail prevent further investigation into the charges?
No, an order for anticipatory bail does not restrict, limit, or diminish the powers and duties of the investigative agency to conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged charges. (Para 8 )
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.11216011260387 of 2026, registered with the Infocity Police Station, District : Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (‘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 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 Learned advocate for the applicant has voluntarily stated that after deducting the entire amount, that has been received, there is discrepancy with respect to the amount of Rs.8,10,000/-, which the applicant is ready and willing to deposit before this Court, without prejudice to his rights and contentions;
3.2 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 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, prima facie, following aspects have been taken into consideration:
a) considering the allegations made in the FIR, the entire dispute is with respect to the transactions qua the purchase of a property and the bank entries.
b) considering the voluntary statement made by the learned advocate for the applicant showing his willingness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs.8,10,000/- before this Court, without prejudice to his rights and contentions;
c) there is no written agreement to sell between the parties with respect to the property in question;
d) the applicant has no past antecedents;
e) 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 (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 & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila A
