Gujarat High Court
Dinesh Vankar Khalse vs State Of Gujarat on 26 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 12061
of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DINESH VANKAR KHALSE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYDEEP SINDHI FOR POOJA D BASWAL(9601) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for
respondent – State of Gujarat.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNSS”), the applicant who was named as accused No.3
has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11824002260557
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
of 2026 registered with Valod Police Station, District: Tapi
for the offence punishable under sections 309(4), 309(6),
115(2), 126(2), 352 and 54 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (‘the BNS’ hereinafter).
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the complainant
and one Rahulbhai had gone on a motorcycle to meet
Saavanbhai, who took them towards the riverside under
the pretext of showing woods. However, after some
conversation, an assault came to be made by all the
three accused persons named in the FIR along with one
unknown boy. Seeking anticipatory bail, the present
application has been filed.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi for the
applicant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the
respondent-State.
5. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Sindhi that, at the
most, the allegations made in the FIR attribute a role to
the applicant with regard to kick and fist blows, attracting
the provisions of Section 115(2) of the BNS, i.e Section
323 of the IPC, and Section 126 of the BNS, i.e. Section
341 of the IPC, for which the maximum punishment
prescribed is one year. It is further submitted by learned
advocate Mr. Sindhi that the applicant does not have any
past criminal antecedents and, in that background, no
custodial interrogation is required and the applicant may
be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Raval appearing for the State
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
submits that the injury certificate collected during the
course of investigation reveals that the complainant
sustained injuries on the left parietal region and the left
temporal region and, as per the history given by the
complainant, the name of the present applicant is
disclosed as one of the assailants acting along with the
co-accused. It is submitted by the learned APP Mr. Raval
that though the present applicant does not have any past
antecedents, he was accompanied by another accused,
namely Savanbhai, accused No.1, who is having more
than 13 criminal antecedents. In that background, it is
submitted that the applicant may not be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and the papers
collected during the course of investigation, the moot
question which arises for consideration is whether the
applicant is entitled to the anticipatory bail as sought for?
8. At this stage, reference of the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun
Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1529 wherein it is held that merely because custodial
interrogation is not required, by itself, could not be a
ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court, while hearing the anticipatory
bail application, has to consider is the prima facie case
against the accused. The relevant extract of the
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: –
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
“It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has
already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our
part that the Investigating Officer does not require
Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the
purpose of further Investigation. Be that as it may, is
for even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 not
required custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that
the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary
relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter
wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has
come before this Court praying that the anticipatory
bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be
cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant
says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion
while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very
serious crime Like POCSO and, therefore, the order
passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to
the accused should be many quashed and aside. In set
anticipatory ball matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that по custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory ball
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 other 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. The first and foremost thing
that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against
the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence
should be looked into along with the severity of thePage 4 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the
grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However,
even if custodial interrogation is not required
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.”
9. This Court has also considered the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 wherein it is held that the statement
and Objects and Reasons that the purpose of
incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize
the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free
and democratic country. While considering the
application for anticipatory bail, the following factors
have to be kept in mind:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as
to whether the accused 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;
(iv) the possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat
similar or the other offences.
(v) Whether the accusation has been made only with the
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
object to injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very
large number of people.
(vi) the courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the
case.
10. Keeping in mind the above decisions as well as settled
principle of law that, at the stage of granting bail,
elaborate examination of the evidence and detailed
reasons touching on merits of the case, which may
prejudice the accused, should be avoided, however if one
would examine the prima facie case, it emerges from the
allegations made in the FIR and the material collected
during the course of investigation, that the applicant was
accompanying accused No.1, namely Saavanbhai and, as
submitted, the applicant is working with Saavanbhai. The
complainant, who had gone to collect woods, was
allegedly assaulted by all the accused persons, including
the present applicant. Saavanbhai is reported to have 13
antecedents of different nature. The investigation
material further reveals that the statements of the
witnesses clearly disclose the role attributed to the
applicant in the assault. Undoubtedly, as per the
allegations, the mobile phone was looted by Saavanbhai.
However, at this stage, when offences under Sections
309(4), 309(6), 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 54 of the BNS are
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12061/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/05/2026
undefined
levelled against the applicant, it cannot be said that no
prima facie case is made out against the applicant so as
to warrant exercise of powers under Section 482 of the
BNSS.
11. It is true that, at times, the Courts are required to grapple
with balancing the most precious right to liberty
embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on
one hand and the rights of an orderly society committed
to the rule of law on the other hand. However, the
allegations made in the FIR and the material gathered
during the course of investigation indicate the
involvement of the applicant in the offence alleged. In the
opinion of this Court, the discretionary power provided
under Section 482 of the BNSS is required to be exercised
with caution and only in exceptional cases. In that
background, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest
bail in favour of the present applicant.
12. Considering the involvement of the applicant, this Court
does not find it to be a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the applicant.
Hence, the present application deserves to be rejected
and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed May 27 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 27 21:25:21 IST 2026
