The High Court of Gujarat, presided over by Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, has granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to relatives accused of instigating a husband to pronounce talaq upon his wife. Taking note that the primary accusation against the applicants was confined to supporting and inciting the husband, and observing that the alleged offences do not attract life imprisonment or capital punishment, the court ruled in favour of protecting the applicants from pre-trial arrest subject to stringent conditions.
Background of the Case
The pre-arrest bail plea arose out of an FIR registered as C.R. No. 11195035260824 of 2026 at the Palanpur Taluka Police Station in the Banaskantha district. The complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act. Apprehending arrest in connection with the criminal proceedings, Rahimaben Abdulkarim Manasiya and four other co-accused approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Submissions of the Parties
Appearing for the applicants, learned advocate Ms. Riyah Z. Sindhi submitted that the nature of the allegations levelled against them did not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage. It was further submitted that the applicants would not flee from justice, would remain fully available during the course of the investigation as well as trial, and were prepared to abide by any conditions the court might impose while granting pre-arrest protection.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Dhwani R. Tripathi, appearing for the State of Gujarat, opposed the plea, highlighting the nature and gravity of the offence and urging the court not to entertain the anticipatory bail application.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Evaluating the submissions, the court noted that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in compliance with established principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The bench reiterated well-settled factors governing bail, including the gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and whether accusations are made with the intent of causing injury or humiliation.
Without entering into an elaborate examination of the evidence on merits, the court highlighted key prima facie aspects favoring the grant of relief, observing:
- “considering the facts of the present case, the only allegations against the applicants are of supporting accused No.1, who is a husband;”
- “the role attributed to the present applicants is of instigating accused No.1 husband to give ‘talaq’ to the complainant;”
- “the offences are not punishable with life imprisonment of death penalty;”
- “the applicants have no past antecedents;”
- “the learned advocate for the applicants has assured that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial.”
In allowing the application, the court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694, which reiterated the Constitution Bench principles in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others (1980) 2 SCC 665, as well as the landmark judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the application, directing that in the event of arrest or appearance, the applicants be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount.
The grant of anticipatory bail is subject to several conditions, requiring the applicants to:
- Cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;
- Refrain from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat, or promise to dissuade witnesses;
- Not tamper with evidence or hamper police investigation;
- Remain present at the Palanpur Taluka Police Station on September 28, 2026, between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
- Furnish their residential address to the investigating officer and not change their residence until final disposal without prior orders;
- Surrender their passports within a week and refrain from leaving India without the court’s permission.
The court clarified that the investigating agency remains at liberty under Section 483(2) of the BNSS to seek cancellation of bail and apply for arrest before the trial court if any conditions are breached. Furthermore, the bench clarified that the trial court shall not be influenced by these prima facie observations during trial, and that the order does not restrict the investigative powers of the police.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rahimaben Abdulkarim Manasiya & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 21522 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
Date: 21/09/2026
