Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshkumar Shantilal Dobariya vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/800/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 800
of 2025
==========================================================
BHAVESHKUMAR SHANTILAL DOBARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R S SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 10/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO.11216004240460 of 2024 registered with Dabhoda Police Station, Gandhinagar.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is of signing a power of attorney in the capacity of witness. The applicant herein has not benefited out of the same. The other co-accused, who are simarliy situated to the present applicant, have been considered for grant of bail by this Court. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present aplication and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:17:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/800/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined alia, contending that a power of attorney came to be forged in the name of first informant. The said power of attorney was executed in the name of the co-accused, who, on the basis of the said power of attorney, had executed a sale-deed in his own favour. The applicant herein was very much part of conspiracy, which was hatched for commission of offence in question. She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. Learned advocate for the original complainant has also opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present offence has been committed in a well orchestrated manner. The applicant herein had also actively participation in commission of offence in question. Initially, a power of attorney came to be forged in the name of the other co-accused and the said co-accused on the basis of said power of attorney entered into sale-deed in his own favour qua the property belonging to the first informant to the tune of Rs.200 crores and the same was sought to be transferred in his own favour for consideration of Rs.2 crores. He further submittted that the other co-accused, who have been considered for grant of bail had signed in the capacity of witnesses in the sale-deed, whereas the applicant had signed the power attorney in the capacity of witness. Thus, the role attributed to the present applicant is different than the role attributed to the other co-accused. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. The role attributed to the present applicant in commission of the offence is to the effect Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:17:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/800/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined that the applicant had signed the power of attorney, which was allegedly forged, in capacity of a witness. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had gained anything out of it. Moreover, the other co-accused, who are similarly situated to the present applicant have been considered for grant of bail.
7. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;
(i) prima facie case
(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:17:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/800/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined 8.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with a FIR be i ng No . C . R . N O . 1 1 2 1 6 0 0 4 2 4 0 4 6 0 of 2024 r e g i s t e r e d w i t h D a b h o d a P o l i c e S t a t i o n , G a n d h i n a g a , on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 1 7 . 0 2 . 2 0 2 5 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:17:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/800/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and
10. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) GIRISH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:17:13 IST 2025