PANKAJBHAI @ RUTVIK KAMABHAI SATIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.A/992/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.
992 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
PANKAJBHAI @ RUTVIK KAMABHAI SATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR MAHAMMD SUFIYAN M SINDHI(10216) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 16/07/2026

JUDGMENT
1) ADMIT . Learned APP waives service of notice of Admission on
behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.
2) Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as “ Atrocity Act ”) challenging the order
dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.622 of 2026,
whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the
present appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “ BNSS ”) seeking regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11198042260127 of 2026
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/992/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
registered with Palitana Town Police Station, District -
Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “ BNS ”) and Sections
3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Atrocities) Act.
3) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
complaint was lodged belatedly after 18 days and no explanation is
given for the delay. The victim was major at the time of incident
and in consensual relationship with the appellant. The victim and
appellant are in love affair as they were working in the same shop.
Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the
appellant. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
4) Learned APP for the respondent State and learned Advocate for the
respondent no.2 – original complainant have opposed the present
appeal on the ground that though the appellant was aware that the
victim belongs to SCST Community, he took undue advantage
under the pretext of false promise of marriage and developed
relationship with the victim and committed offence and if the
applicant is granted bail then he will tamper with the evidence.
Therefore, they have requested to dismiss the present appeal.
5) Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, learned
Advocate for the original complainant and learned APP for the
respondent – State and perusing the papers, it appears that the
appellant was arrested on 25.02.2026 in connection with the above
mentioned FIR. Thereafter, charge-sheet is filed and bail application
of the appellant was rejected. The applicant is 25 years old boy and
victim is also major. In the complaint it is stated that the victim
voluntarily entered into relationship and subsequently the appellant
denied to marry her due to indulgence on the part of his family
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/992/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
members. Considering the quantum of punishment and alleged
involvement in the offence the present appeal deserves
consideration.
6) It is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble 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) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of
the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger,
of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though at the
stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and
detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may
prejudice the accused, should be avoided.
7) Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710 , bar of section 18 of the Atrocity Act would
not be applicable. In view of the above, if the appellant is not
released on bail then it will be pre-trial conviction and considering
the principle of bail is rule and jail is exception, present appeal
deserves consideration with appropriate conditions. This Court has
also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40 .
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/992/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
8) Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
15.04.2026 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.622 of 2026 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released
on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11198042260127 of 2026 registered with Palitana Town
Police Station, District - Bhavnagar on executing a personal
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and
subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a
week;
[d] not leave the India without prior permission of the
concerned trial court;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station once
in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of
execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of the concerned trial court;
[g] not to contact or try to contact directly or
indirectly the victim / complainant or witnesses
connected with the offence;
9) The authorities shall release the appellant only if the appellant is
not required in connection with any other offence for the time
being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the
Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/992/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before
the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open
for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the
above conditions, in accordance with law.
10) At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima
facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
11) Appeal is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:56 IST 2026