Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in Stray Dog Feeding Row Assault Case, Restricts Entry Into Anand District
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel allows successive regular bail to the alleged primary accused in an assault arising from a dispute over feeding stray dogs, imposing a six-month district entry ban.
The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad has granted regular bail to Dhaval @ Bobo Gopalbhai Machi, who has been in custody since 05 October 2025 in connection with an assault that grew out of a quarrel over feeding stray dogs. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, hearing the successive bail application after the chargesheet was filed, allowed the plea on 24 June 2026 while attaching a set of conditions, including a bar on entering Anand district for six months. The applicant was described by the prosecution as the person who had coordinated the arrival of outsiders who assaulted the complainant party, and possibly the primary assailant using a wooden stick. The court weighed this allegation against the length of custody already undergone and the applicant’s record of largely acquitted past cases.
An Assault That Began With a Fight Over Stray Dogs
The case arises from FIR C.R. No. 11215037250630 of 2025 registered at Vidhyanagar Police Station, Anand district, for offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 193(3), 190, 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the order, the incident began when the complainant party had an altercation with a person residing in the same society over feeding stray dogs. That resident is said to have called outsiders who then assaulted the complainant party.
The applicant, Machi, was alleged to have coordinated the bringing of these outsiders. The court noted the prosecution’s case that he “may be the primary accused, having assaulted the victims with a wooden stick.” The application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail after the chargesheet had already been filed. Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed appeared with advocate Ms. Shreya Ojha for the applicant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot with advocate Mr. Jineesh Vadodaria represented the original complainant, whose vakalatnama was permitted to be filed at the outset of the hearing.
Custody Period Against a Chart of Past Acquittals
Counsel for the applicant argued that with the chargesheet already filed, continued incarceration served no useful purpose, and that the applicant was willing to abide by any conditions the court might impose. The Additional Public Prosecutor objected, submitting that given the nature of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant in the chargesheet, discretion should not be exercised in his favour.
Justice Kariel recorded that the applicant has been in custody since 05 October 2025. He also took note of a chart tendered by Senior Advocate Syed regarding the applicant’s ten prior antecedents. Of these, the applicant stood acquitted in eight. In one case under the Gambling Act, he was fined Rs. 500. In one serious matter under Section 307, he had been released on bail. This antecedent history, set against the custody period already served, weighed in favour of considering the application, even as the court flagged a specific concern.
A Second Section 307 Case From the Same Police Station
The court observed that this was “the second offence under old section 307” registered against the applicant at the same police station, and held that this fact required “appropriate safeguards” to be imposed even while granting bail. In arriving at its conclusion, the bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. Without discussing the evidence in detail, the court held, on a prima facie assessment of the allegations in the FIR, that this was “a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.”
The order makes clear that the assessment was preliminary in nature. Justice Kariel directed that the trial court “shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court” made at this stage, which were recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application.
Bail Conditions, Including a District Entry Ban
The application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered released on bail in connection with the FIR registered with Vidhyanagar Police Station, on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions imposed require the applicant to not misuse his liberty, to not act in a manner injurious to the prosecution’s interest, and to surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week.
He was further directed not to leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned Sessions Court, to furnish his residential address to the Investigating Officer and the court at the time of executing the bond, and to intimate any change of residence in advance. Two conditions were specific to the geography of the case: the applicant is barred from entering the limits of Anand district for a period of six months, and must mark his presence once a month for six months before the Chaklasi police station.
The court clarified that the authorities would release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence at the time. Any breach of the conditions would leave the Sessions Court free to take appropriate action.
Order
The bail bond is to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case, which retains the power to delete, modify or relax any of the conditions in accordance with law. Rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, and direct service was permitted. The application was allowed in these terms by Justice Nikhil S. Kariel on 24 June 2026.