Gujarat High Court
Darshan Bhupendrabhai Pithadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 26 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10274/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10274
of 2025
==========================================================
DARSHAN BHUPENDRABHAI PITHADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. DIPEN SANKHESARA for the Respondent(s) No.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 26/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt waives
service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-
accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event
of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at the Gandhigram
Police Station, District- Rajkot (City), vide CR No.11208035250310 of
2025, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing for the applicant
has submitted that the relationship between the present applicant
and the victim was consensual. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani, in
support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the
hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2021 (18) SCC 517 and
urged that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may
be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Mon May 26 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 26 22:22:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10274/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2025
undefined
4. On the other hand, the learned APP Ms.Jyoti Bhatt appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.1 -State and learned advocate
Mr.Dipen Sankhesara appearing for the respondent No.2 have
opposed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties,
and having perused the documents produced on record, it appears
that it is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant had
developed physical relationship with the victim under a false
promise of marriage. However, the evidence on record, prima-facie
suggest that the relationship between the victim-complainant and
the present applicant was consensual. Admittedly, the victim-
complainant and the present applicant both were adult and well
educated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover,
considering the case of the prosecution as it is, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no custodial interrogation is required.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, perused the investigation papers and taken into
consideration the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, the
role attributed to the applicant-accused, and without discussing the
evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicant-accused.
7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in
[2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the
law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC
665, and in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Mon May 26 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 26 22:22:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10274/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2025
undefined
(NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1.
8. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant, on
instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide
by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard
to the powers of the Investigating Agency to file an application
before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit
that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the
right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits
may be kept open.
9. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with
the FIR registered at the Gandhigram Police Station, District- Rajkot
(City), vide CR No.11208035250310 of 2025, the applicant shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like amount, on
the following conditions that he shall:
(a) co-operate with the investigation and make himself
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30 th
May 2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts
to the court or to any police officer;
(d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not
to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be
collected by the police;
(e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to
the Investigating Officer as well as the Court concernedPage 3 of 4
Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Mon May 26 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 26 22:22:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/10274/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2025
undefined
and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of
the case or till further orders;
(f) not leave India without the prior permission of the Court,
and if having a passport, shall deposit the same before the
trial Court within a week;
10. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima
facie observations made by this Court, while enlarging the applicant
on bail. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
prk
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by PIYUSH RAMESHBHAI KANOJIYA(HC01390) on Mon May 26 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 26 22:22:13 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link