Gujarat High Court
Harshadbhai Kanubhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 27397
of 2025
==========================================================
HARSHADBHAI KANUBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
1) The applicant seeks the extraordinary relief of
anticipatory bail without full and candid disclosure of his
criminal antecedents. While some antecedents have been
disclosed, others have been deliberately suppressed,
resulting in a partial and misleading presentation before
this Court.
2) The present bail application is filed under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short “BNSS”) for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.111822003200144 of
2020 registered with Vansda Police Station, Dist. Navsari,
for the offence under the provisions of the Prohibition Act.
3) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of
rule for respondent-state.
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
4) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and
learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat.
5) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that during prohibition patrolling, the police carried out
raid and found prohibited muddammal of Rs.17,32,800/-
and therefore the present applicant is arraigned as an
accused in connection with the FIR in question.
6) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
there is no recovery or discovery from the applicant and
there is no prima facie case leveled against the present
applicant as the applicant was not present at the time and
place of the raid. Moreover, the applicant was not directly or
indirectly in contact with the accused person namely
Kailashkumar who was arrested from the spot by the police
authority; that the applicant had not ordered any of the
prohibited muddammal from the accused person.
7) Learned advocate for the applicant has further
submitted that there were three antecedents of the present
applicant, out of which, the present applicant was acquitted
in two offences and in one offence, the applicant is enlarged
on anticipatory bail. Moreover, in the present case, nothing is
required to be recovered from the applicant as muddamal is
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
recovered. However, the applicant is ready and willing to
cooperate with the investigation, therefore, the present
application deserves consideration.
8) The learned APP has mainly argued that the
applicant is very much involved in the offence; as per the
statement of co-accused, at the time of raid, the applicant
was in constant touch with the accused-Kailashkumar, which
was also found out during the investigation. The liquor seized
is worth Rs.17,32,800/-. Therefore, the present applicant is
involved in the said offence and therefore, the application is
required to be rejected.
9) It is also argued by learned APP that there are five
offences registered against the applicant and the same is
suppressed by the applicant. He, therefore, submitted that the
applicant is in habit of committing similar type of offences. It
has been argued that though the applicant is aware that
there is a prohibition of liquor in Gujarat, he has acted as a
mediator to see that the liquor is supplied in Gujarat state
and if the applicant is released, then possibility cannot be
ruled out that the applicant shall indulge in such type of
illegal activities and therefore, his custodial interrogation is
required to curled out the truth as to who are the others to
whom he had supplied in Gujarat therefore, the present
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
application does not deserve any consideration.
10) Having heard learned advocates for the applicant
and learned APP, it transpires from the record that the
name of the applicant has been added on the basis of the
statement of the co-accused, but at the time of investigation,
statement of co-accused provides clues to the investigating
agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the
Investigating Officer has to collect evidence against the
person who has been named as accused. In view of the said
fact, there is no bar on considering the statement of the co-
accused for investigation purpose, irrespective of the fact that
the statement of the co-accused to police is not admissible in
evidence before the Court, but police can certainly consider
that statement as a clue while interrogating him further or
other person arrested or interrogated during the course of
investigation, as the said confession of co-accused gives a clue
to the Investigating Authorities as to how to investigate the
matter and against whom to investigate the matter.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, the statement of the
co-accused provides a clue for investigation and to unearth
the truth, the statement of co-accused is required.
11) Further, in the application, it has been stated that
there are three offences registered against the applicant
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
which are as follows:
(i) FIR No.124 of 2017 for the offence under
Sections 65(e) and 81 of the Prohibition Act
registered with Mandvi Police Station,
(ii) C.R.No.11200051221551 of 2022 under
Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 98(2) and 116(2) of the
Prohibition Act registered with Dungra Police Station
and
(iii) C.R.No.11214002240036 of 2024 for the
offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and
116(2) of the Prohibition Act registered with
Umargadh Police Station.
However, from the investigating papers referred to by learned
APP, there are other two offences, in all five offences,
against the applicant of similar nature, which are not
disclosed by the applicant, which are as follows:
(i) C.R.No.11214008201944 of 2020 registered
with Bardoli, Surat Rural;
(ii) C.R,No.11214032202175 of 2020 registered
with Mandvi, Surat Rural.
Therefore, even on the ground of suppression, concealment of
selective disclosure of material fact, the same amounts to an
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
abuse of process of law and strikes at the very root of
administration of criminal justice; and in the present case,
the applicant has deliberately concealed all his criminal
antecedents before this Court and there was only partial
disclosure and therefore, the said conduct cannot be viewed
as an isolated lapse.
12) The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Zeba Khan
V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2026(0)
AIJEL-SC 76597, has observed and held as under:
“42. It has been consistently emphasised by this Court
that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a
solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid
disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing
on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppression,
concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts
amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes
at the very root of the administration of criminal
justice.
43. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately
concealed his criminal antecedents before the High
Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as
in successive bail applications. Even before this Court,
only partial disclosure was made in the counter-a davit,
despite the existence of multiple criminal cases onPage 6 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated
lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of
accused persons securing discretionary relief by
suppressing material facts.
46. Further, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Kaushal Singh vs. State of Rajashtan, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1473, recommended that all High Courts
consider incorporating specific rules mandating disclosure
of criminal antecedents and involvement in other
criminal cases at the bail stage. The Court observed
that such disclosure requirements would ensure informed
adjudication and prevent abuse of judicial process, and
accordingly directed circulation of the judgment to the
Registrars General of all High Courts for appropriate
consideration. The relevant paragraphs read thus:
“22. Before parting, we would like to state that,
accounting for the criminal antecedents of the
accused while considering the bail applications has
been the subject matter of concern for Courts
across the country. The rules and orders of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific,
Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically
provide as below:
“5. Bail applications. – In every application
for bail presented to the High Court thePage 7 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
petitioner shall state whether similar
application has or has not been made to the
Supreme Court, and if made shall state the
result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall
also mention whether he/she is/was involved
in any other criminal case or not. If yes,
particulars and decisions thereof. An
application which does not contain this
information shall be placed before the bench
with the necessary information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the country
should consider incorporating a similar provision in
the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal
Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on
the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her
involvement in any other criminal case(s)
previously registered.
24. It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this
order shall be communicated to the Registrar
Generals of all the High Courts so that
incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective
Rules can be considered, if such provision does not
exist from earlier.” (Emphasis Supplied)
48. Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is
under an obligation to disclose all material particulars,
including criminal antecedents and the existence of any
coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable
warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or
similar proceedings, duly supported by an a davit, so as
to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail
adjudication.”
13) In the case of Munnesh V/s State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 389, it is held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:
“9. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has
suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement
in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary
relief of bail…
12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each
individual who approaches this Court with a Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by
the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers under
Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the
`SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean
antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvementPage 9 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same
together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out
of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be
found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be
considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave
petition.”
14) Further, from the investigating papers, it also
transpires from the applicant was in constant touch with
the accused no.1. The role of the applicant is stated to
be the person who was to be contacted by the accused-
Kailashkumar on his reaching Bardoli and therefore,
prima facie, it cannot be said that he is not involved in
the offence, though it is very much within the
knowledge of the applicant that the Gujarat being a dry
State, he has been a part of the commission of the
offence of prohibition.
15) In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is
necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and
involvement of an accused prima facie established then,
the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of
pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding
considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white
collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is conscious
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
with the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the
BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal
liberty. But herein, I am of the considered view that, the
present offence is not just an offence against any
individual rather the largest societal interest and public
welfare is involved in and in such circumstances, the delicate
balance is required to be maintained between two rights
one against the personal liberty and second is societal
interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and
intended to secure several purposes, in which the accused
may provide information, during the discovery of material
facts and to relevant information.
16) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash
Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC
379 has been pleased to hold as under:-
“Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offences are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail
can be granted only in exceptional circumstances
where the Court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty.”
17) It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pratibha
Manchanda vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC
3307, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
“19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a
crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of
arrest and protects innocent individuals from
harassment, it also presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual
rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we
must walk lies in striking a balance between
safeguarding individual rights and protecting public
interest. While the right to liberty and presumption
of innocence are vital, the court must also consider
the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and
the need for a fair and free investigation. The court’s
discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and
circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial
to ensure a just outcome.”
18) Insofar as the submission on behalf of the
applicant that in the present case, muddamal is
recovered and therefore, no custodial interrogation is
required is concerned, it is worthy to mention herein,
prima facie case is made out against the present applicant
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
and there are serious allegations against the applicant
that he was in active contact with other accused and he
has actively participated in the offence. Thus, in order to
reach to a logical conclusion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer deserves a free hand. There is no rule
that if custodial interrogation is not required, then
anticipatory bail is required to be granted. The
custodial interrogation is one of the good grounds to
reject the anticipatory bail application but merely
because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is
not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail application.
In this regard, reference is required to be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine (SC) 1529, wherein it is observed and held as
follows:
“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed
one common argument being canvassed that no
custodial interrogation is required and, therefore,
anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be
a serious misconception of law that if no case for
custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution,
then that alone would be a good ground to grant
anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of
the relevant aspects to be considered along with otherPage 13 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which
the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be
required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or
overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.”
19) Further keeping in mind the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, this is not a fit case to
exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
20) In view of the above decision and in view of
the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial
interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other
suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth.
Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.
21) Further, Gujarat is a dry State and pursuant
to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the directive
principles of the State policy, it is the duty of the State
to raise the standard of living and improve the public
health and for the said purpose, prohibition of such
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/27397/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2026
undefined
intoxicating drugs being made compulsory in the Gujarat
State. The State is committed to the ideas and principles of
Father of Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhiji and State also
firmly intends to eradicate the menace of consuming liquor
or intoxicating drugs to overhaul the law relating to
intoxicating drugs and total prohibition in the State and
for that amendments also being made in the Gujarat
Prohibition Act. Considering the aforesaid fact, prima facie
involvement being made out, no case is made out to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
22) For the foregoing reasons and considering the law
laid down in the above cited decisions of this Court as
well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view
that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under
Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the present
applicant. Accordingly, present application does not deserve
any consideration and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
23) It is made clear that the observations made in the
present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial
Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own
merits without being influenced by the observations made
in the present order.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:03:04 IST 2026
