AMANKUMAR ANILBHAI BHATIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.A/1936/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240634062026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.
1936 of 2026
==========================================================
AMANKUMAR ANILBHAI BHATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA T PANCHOLI(13067) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 16/10/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] ADMIT. Learned APP waives service of notice of Admission for
and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.
[2.0] Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as “Atrocity Act”) challenging the judgment and order
th
dated 15.07.2026 passed by the learned 9 Additional Sessions Judge,
Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.4919 of 2026 whereby the
learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellant
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11210004260798 of 2026 registered with Amroli Police Station,
District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2)
and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”); sections
3(2)(v) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “Atrocity Act”).
[3.0] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 22:28:47 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1936/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240634062026)
appellant is not involved in the commission of offence as alleged in
the FIR and has been falsely enroped in the offence. Further, now the
charge-sheet is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered from the present appellant. Even, the co-accused i.e.
mother in law of the deceased against whom main allegations of
constant harassment to the deceased were made, has been released
by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the appellant is required
to be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable terms and
conditions.
[4.0] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State as
well as learned advocate for the original complainant have
vehemently opposed the present appeal and stated that there is prima
facie evidence against the appellant and even, audio and video CD
demonstrating constant harassment to the deceased are available.
Further, the marriage span of deceased and present appellant was of
2 years and deceased was continuously harassed by the present
appellant and other accused persons and if appellant is released on
bail then there is no possibility to stand to trial by the appellant and
there is possibility of tampering with the evidence, he has requested
to dismiss the present appeal.
[5.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments
canvassed by learned advocates for both the sides.
The allegation in the FIR is that accused persons including the
present appellant, who is husband of the deceased, meted constant
torture and harassment to the deceased due to which the deceased
committed suicide. It is pertinent to note that investigation is over and
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present
appellant as the charge-sheet is filed. Further, in view of the decision
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 22:28:47 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1936/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240634062026)
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 . Further, the co-accused has
been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, in view
of decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Batubhai Dabhi vs.
State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1150, appellant is entitled
to the benefit of parity.
[6.0] Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
th
15.07.2026 passed by the learned 9 Additional Sessions Judge, Surat
in Criminal Misc. Application No.4919 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.11210004260798 of 2026
registered with Amroli Police Station, District Surat on executing a
personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and
subject to the conditions that the appellant 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
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 22:28:47 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1936/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240634062026)
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;
[h] shall not take undue advantage of liberty for prolonging
the trial by taking unnecessary adjournment;
[7.0] 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
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.
[8.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima
facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
[9.0] Appeal is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 22:28:47 IST 2026