Though it declined to rule on the merits after the sessions court released him on regular bail, the Gujarat High Court used its order in journalist Ravi Nair’s plea against a non-bailable warrant to underline that litigants invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose every material fact, criticising the failure to reveal a parallel bail application.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday, September 30, disposed of journalist Ravi Nair’s petition challenging his arrest on a non-bailable warrant issued by a sessions court for non-appearance in a criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd., noting that the sessions court had in the meantime granted him regular bail [Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Another].
Justice M.K. Thakker refrained from passing any order on the merits, while recording that Nair had not disclosed that he had simultaneously moved a bail application before the sessions court.
What was challenged
Before the High Court, Nair challenged a September 17 order of the sessions court, sitting as the appellate court, which refused to cancel the non-bailable warrant and directed that he be sent to jail, and a September 3 order holding him to be an absconder who was avoiding arrest. He also sought restoration of the sessions court’s order of March 9, which had suspended his sentence and released him on bail. The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Inder Mohan Goswami, which holds that a non-bailable warrant should issue only where summons is unlikely to secure attendance, had been considered.
Non-disclosure of parallel bail plea
Dictating the order, the Court took exception to the fact that the petition did not reveal the parallel bail application before the sessions court. It observed:
“The conduct of the learned advocate gives an impression that petitioner had attempted to adopt hide and seek approach and to pursue pick and choose matter before this court. As settled law by the Hon’ble Apex Court…a party invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court is expected to approach the court with utmost candour, frankness and openness.”
Rejecting the submission that the omission had caused no prejudice, the Court said it is for the court, and not the party or counsel, to decide whether a fact is material, and that suppression or concealment of material facts amounts to an attempt to manipulate the judicial process rather than a permissible aspect of advocacy.
Disposed of in view of bail
The Court recorded that after the matter had been kept for dictation, it was informed that the sessions court had released Nair on regular bail on September 24, 2026, allowing his application under Section 483 of the BNSS and restoring the March 9 order. It held:
“In view of above subsequent development this court refrains from passing any order on merits of the matter and making any observation with regard to the impugned order. Hence this petition is disposed of accordingly.”
Background of the case
Adani Enterprises Ltd. filed a criminal defamation complaint alleging that Nair published a series of tweets containing false and defamatory statements meant to damage the reputation of the company and the Adani Group. On February 10, 2026, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa convicted Nair of defamation and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. His appeal against the conviction is pending before the sessions court, which suspended the sentence on March 9.
Case Title: Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Another
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 13853 of 2026
Bench: Justice M.K. Thakker, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: September 30, 2026