1. The petitioner has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with Part A I CR No. 11216005250072/2025, lodged with Dehgam Police Station, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNS 2023"), respectively.

2. We heard Mr. Aviral Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, the learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Md. Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

3. We take notice of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.01.2026. The same reads thus:-

                   "1. Applications for exemption are allowed.

                   2. Heard Mr.Gaurav Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

                   3. Liberty to implead the defacto complainant as respondent no.2 in this matter.

                   4. Let amended memo of parties be filed.

                   5. Issue notice, returnable on 23rd March, 2026 to the State as well as to the newly impleaded respondent.

                   6. Until further orders, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer in FIR No.11216005250072 registered on 04.02.2025 at the Police Station Dehgam, District Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                   7. List the matter on 23rd March, 2026."

4. We are informed that the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and has joined the investigation. Besides, we also take notice of the fact that two of the co-accused, i.e., the two sons of the present petitioner have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 01.12.2025. The order reads thus:-

                   "1.Leave granted.

                   2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

                   3. These two appeals by the appellant(s), who are coaccused, arise from a common order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby separate anticipatory bail prayer(s) of the appellants in connection with FIR No. 11216005250072 of 2025, registered at P.S. Dehgam, Gandhinagar, Gujarat were rejected.

                   4. By separate orders dated 11.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, we had accorded interim protection to the appellants. As we had noticed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants(s), the said orders are reproduced below:

                   Dt. 11.09.2025

                   "1. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for leave to implead the informant as Second Respondent, which is granted.

                   2. On 03.09.2025, we had required the Petitioner to bring on record the autopsy report to ascertain whether it was a case of homicide or suicide. The autopsy report has been placed on record. As per the autopsy report, cause of death appears to be due to cardiorespiratory arrest on account of poisoning. The viscera has been preserved and sent for chemical examination to the FSL.

                   3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the prosecution case hinges on a suicide note alleged to have been recovered from the pocket of the trouser which the deceased was wearing at the time of his death. It is submitted that from the suicide note, it appears to be a case that the deceased felt harassed by the action of the accused in repeatedly threatening the deceased.

                   4. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that Petitioner's father is a trustee of the property where the deceased had a Saw Mill and the dispute relates to the possession of that property and, therefore, false allegations have been leveled. It is also the case of the Petitioner that since the prosecution case hinges on a suicide note, which has already been recovered, a custodial interrogation would not be necessary.

                   5. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

                   6. Permission to serve the Standing Counsel representing the State of Gujarat in this Court is granted.

                   7. Notice on behalf of Second Respondent has been waived by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.

                   8. In the meantime, it is provided that if the Petitioner is arrested in connection with C.R. No. 11216005250072 of 2025, Dehgam Police Station, Gandhinagar, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to an undertaking that he shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency. He shall also submit an undertaking that he will neither threaten the witnesses nor tamper the evidence."

                   Dt. 19.09.2025

                   "1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that coaccused has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 13429/2025.

                   2. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.

                   3. Tag the present petition with SLP (Crl) No. 13429/ 2025.

                   4. In the meantime, it is provided that if the Petitioner is arrested in connection with C.R. No. 11216005250072 of 2025, Dehgam Police Station, Gandhinagar, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to an undertaking that he shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency. He shall also submit an undertaking that he will neither threaten the witnesses nor tamper the evidence."

5. Upon service of notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the prosecution's case finds support from a declaration made by the deceased on camera disclosing the reason for committing suicide. It is submitted that from the video recording it appears that he was harassed by the appellants.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the transcript of the video recording reflects deceased's frustration emanating from court cases instituted against him. As those cases were instituted to protect property, on that ground, a case of abetment of suicide is not made out. Insofar as extension of threats are concerned there appears no independent or separate case registered. It has also been submitted that even assuming that the allegations have some basis, investigation does not necessitate custodial interrogation, because it is not the allegation of the deceased in the video, that any poison was provided by the appellant(s) to the deceased to commit suicide or any documents were snatched away from him of which discovery/ recovery may be necessary.

7. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the rival submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution's case, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the interim protection granted earlier is confirmed. More so, when it has not been pointed out to us that custodial interrogation would be necessary to successfully complete the investigation.

8. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these appeals by making the interim orders dated 11.09.2025 and 19.09.2025 absolute subject to the following conditions:

                   (A) Within three weeks from today, the appellants shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court along with an undertaking that they shall co-operate in the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; and

                   (B) They shall submit an additional undertaking that they will not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence."

5. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by this Court dated 29.01.2026 is made absolute.

7. The petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.

8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.