The Supreme Court of India in Soyeb Ishak Mevawala v. The State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 4584 of 2025), has categorically upheld the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant, Soyeb Ishak Mevawala. The Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, strongly rejected the Gujarat High Court's restrictive order, putting prime importance on cooperation in the course of investigation as a consideration that justifies pre-arrest protection.
The Genesis of the Appeal:
The case had come before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, where the plea of the appellant for anticipatory bail appeared to be rejected or curtailed by the August 12, 2025 order made in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12035 of 2025.
Pleading the High Court order through a Special Leave Petition (Criminal), the appellant had come to the Supreme Court. Significantly, on September 3, 2025, the supreme Court issued an interim order that, "In case of arrest, the petitioner(s) shall be released on bail by the Investigating/arresting officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable." This action reflected the Court's initial leaning towards liberty, subject to a final hearing.
Confirmation of Liberty: The Judicial Rationale
After allowing the leave to appeal (hence converting the SLP into a normal Criminal Appeal), the Supreme Court went on to the final judgment. The order clearly identifies the grounds that served heavily in the appellant's favor:
Full Compliance: The Court observed that the requirements ordered in the interim order were "fully complied with."
Cooperation with Investigation: The most important observation was that the appellant "has cooperated during the investigation."
Lack of Misconduct: It was clearly noted that the appellant has never threatened or intimidated any witnesses, nor tried to affect the investigation in any way.
On the basis of these observations of good behavior and cooperation, and after taking into account the "nature of crime and the way in which it was committed" (though details are not mentioned in the Order), the Supreme Court held that the appeal will have to be granted. The September 3, 2025, interim order granting conditional pre-arrest bail was officially confirmed, rendering the freedom given absolute and final for the pre-trial period.
Conditional Grant and Enforcement Mechanism:
When granting the bail, the Court, in its needful supervision, made additional conditions, highlighting the synergy between an accused person's freedom and the criminal justice system's requirements:
- The appellant is ordered to continue cooperating throughout the investigation and subsequent trial.
- The appellant should not seek any undue adjournment in the proceedings.
Notably, the order has a strong punitive provision against abuse of this judicial relief. It authorizes the Investigating Officer, Arresting Officer, or Trial Court to take suitable action as per law, such as cancelling bail, if the investigation or trial gets jeopardized due to the conduct of the appellant. The clause maintains the power of the court and also ensures the purity of the process.
Conclusion:
By aside the Gujarat High Court's challenged order and upholding the grant of anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court re-established the seminal principle that freedom should not be restricted when the accused shows his inclination to comply with the rule of law and ease the probe. The judgment simply indicates that assistance to investigating agencies is a strong determinant of successfully obtaining and maintaining the advantage of pre-arrest bail from the apex court.
