UPENDRA KUMAR JAYPALSINH vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11058 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
UPENDRA KUMAR JAYPALSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D S GADHVI(11310) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 12/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the
respondent-state.
2. By way of the present successive application under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the
applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail
in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.5 of 2025 registered with ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad
for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 337, 338, 339,
341(2)(4), 54 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
and Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms Act.
3. Though Notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) has been issued but
the applicant did not join the investigation. Thereafter charge-
sheet has been filed by the investigating agency. It appears that
the present applicant is cited as accused and the applicant is
shown in Column No.2 of charge-sheet .
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
4. Mr. D.S. Gadhvi, learned advocate for the applicant
submits that the present applicant has nothing to do with the
alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It
is submitted that the applicant is a government servant, is
innocent, and has neither directly nor indirectly played any role
in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted
that whatever act is alleged to have been committed was done by
the computer operator. The complaint has been filed belatedly
after a period of three years and no explanation for such delay
has been given. It is also submitted that the applicant has no
past antecedents. According to the submissions, the alleged
offence, if any, was committed by one Pawan Kumar, who was
working as a data entry operator through an outsourced
appointment and had complete access to operate the online
portal/website, including possession of the office password,
through which wrong information/data came to be entered.
Hence, Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation
at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available
during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice.
In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states
that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the
conditions. It is submitted that the present applicant is not
involved in the alleged offence and therefore, the present
application may be allowed.
5. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned APP appearing on behalf of
the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted
that the applicant is actively involved in the alleged offence. It is
submitted that despite issuance of notice under Section 35, the
applicant neither joined nor cooperated with the investigation. It
is further submitted that the offence is serious in nature and, if
anticipatory bail is granted, the possibility of tampering with the
evidence cannot be ruled out. Learned APP further submits that
in respect of the co-accused having a similar role and involved in
an offence of similar nature, the Coordinate Bench has already
rejected the application for anticipatory bail. It is also submitted
that the regular bail application of co-accused Pawan has been
rejected and he is presently in custody. According to the
prosecution, the present applicant was also working on the same
table as a weapon clerk and had played an active role in forging
licences and tampering with the online government data. It is
further submitted that the present applicant is absconding and
his name has been shown in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet.
Therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not
maintainable at the instance of an absconder. Considering the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned APP has requested
that the present application be dismissed.
6. While considering the anticipatory bail, the Court has to
consider, the following factors; (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
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject
the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant
of anticipatory bail;
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the papers on record, it appears that
the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, has registered the present
offence in connection with bogus arms licences issued during the
period from 2019 to 2022. It has come on record that such
forged arms licences were used on a large scale for possessing
arms, revolvers, pistols and live cartridges. In connection
therewith, the complaint came to be registered.
8. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the
aforesaid arms licences were forged and were generated from the
office at Etah, Uttar Pradesh. It further appears that, in collusion
and connivance with one co-accused advocate and with the
assistance of co-accused Pawan Kumar Ganga Prasad Lodi
(computer operator), Rajkumar Babulal (clerk) and the present
applicant Upendra Jaypalsinh (weapon clerk), the accused
persons, for their pecuniary gain, misused the Government of
India portal NDAL-ALIS by using unique identification numbers
(UINs). The investigation further reveals that details of previously
issued genuine arms licences, including names, validity and
territorial particulars, were deleted from the system and, by
editing the data on the official website, forged arms licences
came to be issued in place of the original licences.
9. It further transpires from the investigation that for
issuance of such forged licences, an amount of Rs.98,32,500/-
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
was received in cash as well as through banking transactions
from 12 persons arrested from Ahmedabad. Not only that, on the
strength of such forged arms licences, the accused persons
managed to procure arms from J.P. Gun House situated in Uttar
Pradesh and facilitated the purchasers in obtaining arms on the
basis of 12 bogus licences. The arms and cartridges have also
been recovered during the course of investigation.
10. Further, involvement and role of the present applicant is
concerned, it appears that he was serving as a weapon clerk
during the period from 16.01.2021 to 09.03.2021 and again from
18.09.2021 to 19.11.2021 in the concerned department. The
material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates
that the present applicant had edited licence data using the UIN
numbers and thereafter such licences came to be transferred to
Gujarat. Thus, prima facie involvement of the present applicant
is reflected from the investigation papers. One additional
important aspect is that, though the present applicant is a
government servant, despite notices being issued through the
Collector, Etah, calling upon him to join the investigation, he
neither remained present nor cooperated with the investigating
agency. Such conduct prima facie indicates an attempt on the
part of the applicant to thwart the investigation proceedings.
11. It is worth to mention that the applicant is shown as
absconder in Column No.2 of charge-sheet. It appears that he is
on run. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in
2023 INSC 784; Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012)
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
8 SCC 730; Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in
2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and Srikant
Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 and Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda reported in 2025 INSC
477, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2
SCC 171 , the Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit
case to exercise its jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail in favour
of the applicant.
12. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary.
When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an
accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath
to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any
other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature
of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is
conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the
BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal
liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the
present offence is not just an offence against any individual
rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved
in and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to
be maintained between two rights one against the personal
liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the
process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes.
In which the accused may provide information, during the the
discovery of material facts and to relevant information.
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
13. In such circumstances, when investigation is in a
progressive stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the
investigation and to collect the material in the more information,
and find out the involvements of another person custodial
interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the
law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
(i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997
(7) SCC 187 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported
in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate
of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438
CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to
protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from
being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the
court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not
just an offence against an individual rather the larger
societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is
required to be established between the two rights –
safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the
societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to
secure not only the presence of the accused but several other
purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused
may provide information leading to discovery of material
facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may
hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating
agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the
useful information and also the materials which might have
been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if
the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the
court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic
offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's
right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating
agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far
collected and to collect more information which may lead to
recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to
denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more
so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand
as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted
only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred
upon the court has to be properly exercised after application
of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation;
possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to
decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the
sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court
must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of
anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in
exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or
groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of
rule and it has to be granted only when the court is
convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to
that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of
investigations, held investigating agency must be given
sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant
not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would
hamper the investigation"
14. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the applicant that in
the present case, no custodial interrogation is required is
concerned, it is required to mention that herein, prima facie case
is made out against the present applicant and there are serious
allegations against the applicant. Thus, in order to reach to a
logical conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
deserves a free hand. There is no rule that if custodial
interrogation is not required then anticipatory bail is required to
be granted. The custodial interrogation is one of the good
grounds to reject the anticipatory bail application but merely
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
because custodial interrogation is not required, itself is not a
ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. In this regard,
reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar
C.K. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1529 , wherein it is
observed and held as follows:
“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is
required and, therefore, anticipatory bail 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.”
In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only
the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to
unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction in favour of the applicant
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh
vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 has
been pleased to hold as under:-
“Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offences are required to be satisfied and further while
granting such relief, the court must record the reasons
therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his
liberty.”
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
16. It is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs.
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
“19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a
crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest
and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it
also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate
balance between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a
balance between safeguarding individual rights and
protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and
presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on
society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the
facts and circumstances of each individual case
becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”
17. The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be
harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal
vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of
allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order
under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C is not a passport to the
commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation,
which adversely affects the society.
18. This Court is of the considered view that if the present
accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously
adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative
investigation as the applicant is absconding, having trained legal
mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of
prosecution.
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11058/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/05/2026
19. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid
down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case
to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in
favour of the present applicant. Accordingly, present application
does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed .
Rule is discharged.
20. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall
decide the regular bail application of the applicant on its own
merits without being influenced by the observations made in the
present order.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:48:27 IST 2026