Gujarat High Court
Harish Anil Gupta vs State Of Gujarat on 26 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12051/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 12051
of 2026
================================================================
HARISH ANIL GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave to amend the prayer clause is granted.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for
respondent – State of Gujarat.
3. By way of the present 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. 11993006260461 of 2026 registered with ‘A’ Division
Police Station, District: Gandhidham for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the applicant
has submitted that the applicant and the complainant were
in consensual relationship. It is submitted that the
applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and that
no serious injuries have been caused to the complainant.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Singh for the applicant submits that
the nature of allegations are such for which custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Tue May 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 26 21:33:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12051/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
submits that the applicant will keep himself available
during the course of investigation, trial also and will not
flee from justice.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Singh for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing
to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while
releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail. Learned
advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above
facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail by
imposing suitable terms and conditions.
7. Learned APP Mr. Krutik Parikh has opposed the
anticipatory bail.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing 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 so
arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Tue May 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 26 21:33:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12051/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should
be avoided.
9. This Court has considered the following aspects.
(a) The complainant appears to be an adult lady aged
around 28 years. Prima facie, it appears that both
the applicant and the complainant are serving in the
Railway Department, were in a consensual
relationship. Though allegations have been made by
the complainant with regard to attempt of throw of
chemical substance, however, the material collected
during the investigation does not support the said
aspect, neither any injury certificate is collected
during the investigation.
(b) Upon plain reading of the FIR, suggests that the
relationship which were developed between the
complainant and the present applicant were
subsequently misussed because of non payment of
the amount.
(c) Custodial interrogation is not required in such cases.
(d) No antecedents reported against applicant.
10. 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
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Tue May 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 26 21:33:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12051/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, this Court is
inclined to allow the present application.
11. 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.
11993006260461 of 2026 of 2026 registered with
‘A’ Division Police Station, District: Gandhidham , the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one
surety of like amount on the following conditions that
applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 05.06.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and
the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or
inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of
the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall 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) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change her/his residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Tue May 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 26 21:33:29 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12051/2026 ORDER DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before
the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest
bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section
483(3) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of
any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during
investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to
witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the
investigation or trial, etc.
12. 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.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Radhika/37
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Tue May 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 26 21:33:29 IST 2026
