The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to five relatives accused of supporting and instigating a husband to pronounce talaq, noting their limited alleged role, absence of criminal antecedents and assurance of cooperation with the investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail to five relatives booked in a criminal case arising from allegations that they supported and instigated a husband to pronounce talaq upon the complainant.
Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker allowed the pre-arrest bail application after observing that the only allegation against the applicants was that they supported the husband and encouraged him to give talaq to the complainant.
The Court also considered that the alleged offences were not punishable with imprisonment for life or the death penalty, the applicants had no previous criminal antecedents and they had undertaken to remain available during the investigation and trial.
FIR invokes BNS and Triple Talaq Act provisions
The application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 11195035260824 of 2026 registered at Palanpur Taluka Police Station in Banaskantha district.
The FIR invokes Sections 85, 351(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
Applicants said custodial interrogation was unnecessary
Counsel for the applicants submitted that the nature of the allegations did not require custodial interrogation. It was further stated that the applicants would cooperate with the investigation, remain available during the proceedings and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on behalf of the State, relying upon the nature and gravity of the alleged offences.
Court considers limited role and absence of antecedents
While considering the application, the High Court reiterated that the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously and cautiously. It identified the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, the possibility of fleeing from justice and whether the accusation was intended to injure or humiliate the accused through arrest as relevant factors.
The Court clarified that a detailed examination of the evidence should be avoided at the bail stage because observations touching the merits could prejudice the criminal proceedings.
On a prima facie assessment, the Court recorded that the applicants were accused only of supporting the husband and instigating him to pronounce talaq. It also took note of their clean antecedents and assurance that they would neither flee from justice nor avoid the investigation or trial.
In granting relief, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
₹10,000 bond and cooperation conditions imposed
The High Court directed that, in the event of their arrest or appearance in connection with the FIR, each applicant must be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety for the same amount.
- The applicants must cooperate with the investigation and remain available for interrogation whenever required.
- They must not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the case to prevent disclosure of facts to the Court or police.
- They must not obstruct the investigation or interfere with evidence already collected or yet to be collected.
- They must remain present at the concerned police station on September 28, 2026, between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
- They must furnish their addresses while executing the bonds and cannot change residence without permission until disposal of the case or further orders.
- They cannot leave India without the Court’s permission and must deposit their passports, if any, before the trial court within one week.
The order permits the police or investigating agency to approach the trial court under Section 483(2) of the BNSS for arrest if an applicant violates the bail conditions by absconding, refusing to cooperate, evading the investigation or attempting to intimidate or influence witnesses.
The High Court made clear that its observations were confined to the anticipatory bail application and must not influence the trial court. It also clarified that the order does not restrict the police or investigating agency from investigating the charges against the applicants.
Case Title: Rahimaben Abdulkarim Manasiya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 21522 of 2026
Coram: Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
Order Date: September 21, 2026