Allowed

Deepak Kumar Sushil Kumar Shukla v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Sept 2026CR.MA/20621/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS for applicants facing charges of corporate fraud and alleged siphoning of funds. The court imposed a personal bond and strict conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and non-fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to be released on bail upon arrest by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount subject to specified conditions.

Deepak Kumar Sushil Kumar Shukla Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2026)

¶1

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20621 of 2026

¶3

================================================================ DEEPAK KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶4

================================================================ Appearance:

¶5

MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

¶8

Date : 07/09/2026 ORAL ORDER

¶9

By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11199061260721 of 2026, registered with Ankleshwar City B Division Police Station, District: Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 318(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶10

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

¶11

Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 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

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026

¶19

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:

¶20

a) considering the fact that the present dispute is with respect to the purchase of machinery initially the quotation was given by Airline Pro Textile Machinery Pvt. Ltd. wherein the present applicants are the Directors;

¶21

b) the role attributed to the present applicants is of siphoning of Rs. 1.94 crores which were to be disbursed by the complainant – Bank. The complainant states that initially as the order was placed to the present applicants, they had already invested Rs. 54 lacs for purchasing the machinery for and on behalf of Priyan creation and documentary evidence to the said are produced. Moreover, present applicants are also returned an amount of Rs.1.94 crore and the remaining amount of Rs.54 lacs is the amount which was given to the Chinies company from which the machinery was to be purchased for an on behalf of Priyan;

¶22

c) the applicants have no past antecedents; d) the learned advocate for the applicants has

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026

¶25

assured that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶29

Page 4 of 6

¶30

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026) ORDER DATED: 07/09/2026

¶31

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;

¶32

(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;

¶33

(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 14.09.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (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;

¶34

(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) 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.

¶35

Page 5 of 6

¶36

R/CR.MA/20621/2026 (GJHC240673232026)

¶37

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.

¶38

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 applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail.

¶39

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

¶40

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)

¶41

Manoj Kumar Rai

¶42

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MANOJKUMAR RAI(HC01072), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/09/2026 13:53:21

¶43

Page 6 of 6

Deepak Kumar Sushil Kumar Shukla v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Sushil Kumar Shukla 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