Gujarat High Court
Gurudevsingh Charanjitsingh Gill vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8643
of 2026
==========================================================
GURUDEVSINGH CHARANJITSINGH GILL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AKSHAY S JAIN(12249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 17/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
Rule for the respondent – State.
2. 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. 11191036260030 of 2026, registered
with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence
punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 324(4) and 54 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).
3. The learned advocate Mr. Chandrashekhar Yadav appearing
on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Akshay S. Jain for the applicant
would submit that the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an
accused, and arrest was apprehended, the applicant herein had filed
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad, by Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1885 of
2026, which was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the
learned Sessions Court. Learned advocate for the applicant would
submit that the allegations in the FIR reveal that on 09.03.2026, near
GLS College Gate No.8, the applicant alongwith two persons
allegedly came in a Fortuner vehicle carrying weapons and had
attacked the complainant. It is further alleged that in the attempt the
glass of the complainant’s Thar vehicle was damaged, and the
complainant was threatened of his life, where after the complainant
allegedly ran away. That, on the plain reading of the complaint, it is
apparently clear that no injury was caused by the present applicant,
no treatment was taken by the complainant; the incident was at best
a verbal altercation. The learned Sessions Court nevertheless
rejected the application on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, the
affidavit of the investigating officer asserting antecedents, pendency
of investigation, and the perceived need for custodial interrogation.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav would further submit that the
applicant is an young innocent boy and has not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that learned
Sessions Court failed to test the FIR allegations on the settled
principle that, at the stage of anticipatory bail also, the Court is
required to examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences are even prima facie disclosed and whether arrest is truly
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
warranted in the facts of the case. He would also submit that even if
the allegations recorded in the impugned order are taken at their face
value, the ingredients of the gravest non-bailable accusations are not
made out. The allegations as reproduced do not disclose a clear,
definite, or credible factual foundation to infer a real intention to
cause death, which is the core requirement for an offence premised
on an intention to kill. Mere use of strong words, anger, or an
altercation, without corresponding injury, without medical treatment,
and without any material showing a sustained or effective murderous
assault, cannot be itself justify elevating the matter into an
accusation carrying the element of intention to kill.
3.2. Learned advocate would relied on the following judgments in
support of his case:
1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SSC 694;
2. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of
Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565;
3. Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 212;
4. Shravan Kumar Chouhan v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in 2022 Supreme (MP) 1452;
5. State of M.P. v. Saleem Allias Chamaru and Another,
reported in (2005) 5 SSC 554;
6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha Alias
Omprakash, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 605;
7. Jage Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, reported in
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
(2015) 11 SCC 366;
8. Laxman & Another v. State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi,
reported in 2013 Supreme (Del) 1286;
3.3. He would lastly submit that the arrest of the applicant at this
premature stage will cause irreversible damage to the applicant’s
reputation, career and family life, and therefore, the custodial
investigation of the applicant is not required. Thus, argued to grant
the anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan
Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent – State vehemently
opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity
of the offence. He would submit that the applicant himself has
accepted the facts of driving the car alongwith main accused namely
Adityasinh Dilipsinh Rathod, alongwith one another un-identified
person, and therefore, it cannot be said that, merely because his
name is not reflecting in the FIR, he is not involved in the alleged
crime. That, there are specific allegations with regard to inflicting
injuries and running behind the complainant and threatening him and
inflicting with wooden log/stick, and therefore also when prima
facie case against the applicant is made out, this Court should not
entertain the present application, and thus, argued to reject the
anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
5. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties. This
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
Court has perused the papers of Investigation.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present
applicant is not named in the FIR, however, Adityasinh Dilipsinh
Rathod named alongwith 2 other unknown persons is clearly stated
in the FIR. As far as 2 persons who are un-identified the role
attributed by them is that the complainant while making efforts to
save his life ran from the place of offence, at that time, all the 3
persons ran behind the complainant and also inflicted injuries with
wooden log/stick, therefore, the arguments of the learned advocate
that the applicant is not involved in the serious offence attracting the
provision of Section 109 of the BNS does not hold good, more
particularly, when the allegations are also levelled attracting the
provisions of Section 118(1) read with Sections 115(2) and 54 of the
BNS.
7. A perusal of Section 45 of the BNS, more particularly,
Explanation 2 states that “whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” In the facts of the
present case, the present applicant alongwith the main accused
Adityasinh Rathod and one other unknown person came near the
complainant and were starring to the complainant, to which the
complainant put a question “is there anything wrong?” to which
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
Adityasinh Rathod answered “nothing wrong”, and thereafter, left
the place, and at 12:30 to 01:00 noon, Adityasinh Rathod again came
with the Fortuner and present applicant along with Aditysinh Rathod
and other unknown person approached with scythe and wooden
log/stick tried to break the front glass of the car by scythe, and
questioned the complainant, as to why did he speak in such a manner
and inflicted the scythe, however, the complainant duct, therefore,
the scythe dashed with the door of the car due to which the sun-wiser
was broken. Since, the complainant to save his life, run away from
the place of offence, all the 3 persons followed him and also tried to
beat him with wooden log/stick. Under the circumstances, it cannot
be said that the provision of Section 54 of the BNS, read with
Section 45 – Explanation 2 are not attracted. Thus, the applicant was
driving the car has facilitated the commission of that act and
facilitated thereby again coming back between 12:30 to 01:00 noon
and also running behind the complainant, and trying to inflict
injuries with wooden log/stick. Merely, because the complainant has
not sustained any injuries it cannot said that the provisions of
Section 109(1) read with Section 54 of the BNS were not attracted.
8. As far as the various judgments relied by the learned advocate
for the applicant are concerned, this Court is bound by the law laid
down in the said judgments. However, as far as the judgments relied
by the learned advocate in the case Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre (supra) and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) are
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
concerned, the nature and gravity of the acquisition and role
attributed by the present applicant cannot be brushed away lightly. It
does not transpires for FIR and investigation papers that the
acquisition has been only with the object of injury which has been
made by the applicant. It cannot be said that, the applicant would be
facing harassment after involving himself into alleged crime. Prima
facie it does not appear that the case of the prosecution is frivolous,
more particularly, when the complainant has no axe to grind against
the present applicant, hence, the cited case laws are not applicable in
the present case. As far as judgment in the case of Maniklal Sahu
(supra) is concerned where the appeal was against the conviction
under Section 307 of the IPC, thus, the said case cannot be
considered while deciding anticipatory bail application. As far as the
case of Shravan Kumar Chouhan (supra) is concerned, there
anticipatory bail was granted on the facts of the said case where false
implication of the applicant which was arising because of the land
dispute and lack of evidence supporting the serious allegations were
concerned, more particularly, there were omnibus allegations,
however, injuries were simple in nature, that the facts are different
and are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As far as the
case of State of M.P. v. Saleem Allias Chamaru (supra) is also not
applicable to the facts of the case, since, before the Supreme Court,
the Single Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court directed reduction of
the custodial sentence for the period already undergone for the
offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 333 and 506-2 of the
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IPC was concerned thus it was only after the completion of trial, that
the Supreme Court dealt with the case on hand, thus, the facts cannot
be applied to anticipatory bail. As far as the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha Alias Omprakash (supra) is also after
conviction, where trial court convicted the accused under Section
324, whereas the trial court had convicted under Section 304 of the
IPC, the facts are different, cannot be applied to anticipatory bail. As
for as the case of Jage Ram and Others (supra) also arises after
conviction, thus, while granting of anticipatory bail the factual
aspects of that case cannot be applied in the factual aspects of the
present case. As far as the case of Laxman & Another (supra) is
concerned there was a delay of 14 days in lodging of FIR and lack of
satisfactory explanation leading to the benefit of doubt to the
accused is concerned, the said case is also after the trial was over,
and thus, said case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case,
more particularly, prima facie, there does not see any delay in
lodging of the FIR since alleged offence was committed between
12:30 to 01:00 noon, whereas the complainant lodged FIR in the
evening at 6 O’clock on the same day. Under the circumstances, it
cannot be said that, prima faice case is not made out. Though the
custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail, however, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail, more particularly, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and Another,
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8643/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
reported in (2022)17 SCC 391.
9. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances and
discussion, after considering the material placed before this Court,
strong prima facie case against the present applicant in the alleged
offence surfaces on record. Under the circumstances, this Court does
not find any exceptional ground to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction, hence, the present application stands rejected. Rule
discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:27:56 IST 2026