Gujarat HC Grants Anticipatory Bail Citing Absence of Specific Overt Acts

The Gujarat High Court has reinforced the protective shield of anticipatory bail in criminal proceedings where no specific weapon-based assault is attributed to the accused, balancing custodial necessity against personal liberty. By prioritizing judicial discretion and the absence of criminal antecedents, the Court clarified that mere presence at a crime scene does not automatically necessitate custodial interrogation under the new criminal framework.

In a proceeding presided over by Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, the Court heard an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought protection in connection with an FIR registered at Danilimda Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 62, 324(4), and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Judicial Discretion and Constitutional Principles

The Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with caution, keeping in mind the gravity of the offense and the intent behind the accusation. It was observed that the primary goal is to ensure the accused participates in the investigation without being subjected to unnecessary humiliation or injury through arrest.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 having him so arrested."

The Court further noted that although the applicant was allegedly present at the scene, there was no specific allegation of assault with a weapon. The existence of a cross-complaint filed by the applicant and the lack of past criminal history weighed heavily in favor of granting relief. The Bench relied on the principles established in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others ( "(2011) 1 SCC 694": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 1528), which reiterated the Constitution Bench rulings in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2020) 5 SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1053).

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

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

(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;

(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;

(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15.09.2026 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;

(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."

Background

The case arose from an FIR registered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita at Ahmedabad. The applicant moved the High Court seeking protection from arrest, arguing that the allegations did not necessitate custodial interrogation and that he was willing to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offences. However, the High Court observed that at the stage of bail, elaborate examination of evidence should be avoided to prevent prejudice. Finding that the applicant posed no flight risk and had no prior convictions, the Court allowed the application subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and specific conduct-related conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CR.MA/20713/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:56642
Case Title: Mohammed Sahil Salimbhai Mansuri Versus State Of Gujarat
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Rafik Lokhandwala
For the Respondent(s): Mr Ronak Raval, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 20680