Allowed

Mayurbhai Vaghjibhai Bagada v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Sept 2026CR.MA/17417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, the High Court of Gujarat allowed the plea after balancing the gravity of offences in the FIR against the applicant's lack of antecedents and the prima facie evidence suggesting a consensual relationship. The applicant was granted bail upon furnishing a bond and agreeing to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety.

Mayurbhai Vaghjibhai Bagada Vs State of Gujarat — Anticipatory Bail | Gujarat HC (2026)

¶1

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 17417 of 2026

¶4

========================================================== MAYURBHAI VAGHJIBHAI BAGADA

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR ZUBIN BHARDA FOR MR NITINKUMAR V PATEL(13191) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

¶12

Date : 11/09/2026

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

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. 11210004261389 of 2026, registered with Amroli Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 318(4), 351(2), 296(b) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.

¶15

Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

¶16

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶19

this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

¶20

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶21

As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and requested not to entertain this application.

¶22

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the 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

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶25

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 merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided. However, prima facie, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

¶26

a) the present applicant’s wife has already filed a complaint on 16.06.2026 against the present complainant; b) earlier the complainant had also tried to lodge a complaint but considering the over all facts stated in the FIR which has been filed on 20.06.2026, prima facie, it appears that there was consensual relationship between the applicant and the complainant. The complainant is aged 25 years. Even, in the FIR, it has been stated that time and again, the present applicant and complainant met each other which also includes meeting in a hotel and having physical relationship.

¶27

c) the fact remains that the present complainant has aborted a child but the fact also remains that there was consensual relationship between the applicant and the complainant.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶30

d) the Investigating Officer has not been able to show that any nude photographs have been taken.

¶31

e) the applicant has no past antecedents;

¶32

f) the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the applicant will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 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 & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present application.

¶34

In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant:

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶37

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;

¶38

(b) 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;

¶39

(c) 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;

¶40

(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 18.09.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶41

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

¶42

(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;

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

R/CR.MA/17417/2026 (GJHC240558582026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶45

(g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) of the BNSS 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.

¶46

7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail application.

¶47

It is made clear that this 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 applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.

¶48

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

¶49

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)

¶50

SRILATHA

¶51

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SRILATHA VENKATARAO UPADHYAYULA(HC00185), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/09/2026 16:08:21

¶52

Page 6 of 6

Mayurbhai Vaghjibhai Bagada v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayurbhai Vaghjibhai Bagada v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases