Gujarat High Court
Sachinkumar Bhikhabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09/07/2025
Pronounced On : 22/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10182
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SACHINKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARM K RAVAL(10689) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HITESHKUMAR R PARMAR(17660) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Harshadray A. Dave waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11214046250672 of 2025 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat Rural for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
3. According to the case of the prosecution, somewhere in April, 2021, the complainant came in contact with one advocate, namely, Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Rohit through advocate Mr. Vinodbhai Thakarshibhai Patel, and the said Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Rohit told the complainant that he is having many clients and based on his experience, he can get the complainant benefited if he invest money in the land. It is alleged that, accordingly, the said Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Rohit informed the complainant that one of his clients, namely, Khumansinh Gambhirsinh Solanki is having a parcel of land bearing Survey No.236/2 admeasuring 12242 square meters at village Makhinga, Taluka: Palsana, Dist:
Surat who wants to sell the said land at a very reasonable price, and its a title clear land. Bipinbhai further told him that his three clients are ready to purchase 75% share of the said land and the complainant can purchase the remaining 25% of the land. The said Bipinbhai assured the complainant of good return upon investment being made into the said land. Therefore, relying upon the words of Bipinbhai, the complainant shown willingness to purchase the said portion of land, and accordingly, in October, 2021, a registered sale deed of the said land was executed in favour of the complainant by Khumansinh Gambhisinh Solanki and three other purchasers, and therefore, out of the amount of total sale consideration of Rs.32 Lakhs, the complainant had paid the amount of his share of Rs.8 Lakh by two different cheques, and subsequently, on the basis of the said registered sale deed, the names of the complainant and three co-purchasers came to be mutated in the revenue record. It is alleged that, later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the said Khumansinh Solanki is not the real owner of the land, and advocate Bipinbhai Rohit, in connivance with one Talati, i.e., the Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined present applicant, had concocted the false pedigree in the name of Khumansinh Solanki. It is further alleged that, the said Bipinbhai Rohit, being an advocate, was well aware of the fact that Khumansinh Solanki was not the real owner of the land, and in fact, one Hetuba was the real owner of the said land, and there are in all 18 Class-1 heirs of the said Hetuba, and despite the said fact, all the accused persons, in collusion with each other, with a malice intention to illegally gain some monetary benefits, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and thereby committed an offence of forgery and cheating. With this sort of allegations, the present FIR has been filed.
4. Thus, apprehending his arrest pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant preferred anticipatory bail before the trial court, however, the trial court has not entertained the said application and rejected the same.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR are of such a nature, for which, custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee from justice. He further submits that total five persons have been arraigned as an accused, wherein the present applicant is stood at Serial No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further submits that the offence alleged to have been occurred in the year 2021, for which, the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2025, and as such, there is a gross delay of almost five years in registering the FIR. He also Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined submits that the present applicant has been working as Talati since last 17 years having an unblemished stint, and not a single antecedent is there against the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submits that, if the allegations made in the FIR is seen, almost all the allegations are against the accused No.3-Bipinbhai Dahyabhai, and the role attributed to the present applicant is of aiding the accused No.3 in committing the offence. Thus, the main kingpin of the crime is accused No.3-Bipinbhai Dahyabhai who has derived all the benefits from the said transaction, and he has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial court, and as such, on the ground of parity, considering the role of the present applicant, on the basis of allegations made in the FIR, to be of similar nature or lesser but not graver than that of the accused No.3 who has been granted the respite, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. He submits that as per the FIR itself, it was the accused No.3 who contacted the complainant and assured of him to give good return on investment being made, and not the present applicant. The present applicant never met the complainant nor any of the witnesses. The applicant was performing his duties as Talati very honestly, and on the basis of the affidavit produced by the accused No.3 along with the two witnesses, as per the rules and regulations of his department, the present applicant had done his work, and there was no legal mind or conspiracy at the end of the present applicant in doing the said work, and it had been done legitimately being a part of his duty on the basis of the documents placed before him.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submits that the entire script was prepared by the accused No.3-Bipinbhai who is an advocate by profession, and who is the direct beneficiary of the said Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined transaction. He submits that even at the time of releasing the co- accused Bipinbhai on anticipatory bail, the trial court has not attributed any role to the present applicant, and the accused No.1-Khumansinh Solanki was shown to be the main accused, who has already been expired. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further submits that when the original heirs/owners of the land came to know about the transaction in question, they initiated civil proceedings by filing a civil suit, wherein along with the other co-accused, the complainant has also been joined as the defendant, and the present applicant has not been joined in the said suit. Thus, it appears that the entire plan was orchestrated by deceased Khumansinh and other co-accused, and the present applicant is nowhere concerned or connected with the alleged conspiracy, as the present applicant did not know any of the co- accused, and as such, there is no question of hatching any conspiracy along with the other co-accused. The present applicant only did his task as the Talati of the village relying upon the documents placed by the parties, completely unaware about the forgery being committed by the co-accused. He further submits that the present applicant is a Government servant and has not committed any forgery, and as the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. Moreover, all the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate. He submits that if the allegations levelled against the present applicant are to be read in toto, then at the most, it can be said that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the present applicant, and no criminal liability can be fastened upon him. Thus, when the co-accused attributed with more or less similar role to that of the present applicant has already been released on Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined anticipatory bail, the benefit of parity can be extended to the present applicant, and to buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Popat relies upon the decision in the case of Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2005 7 SCC 226.
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Popat for the applicant prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
9. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP. Learned APP submits that the present applicant has been named in the FIR along with his specific role. He submits that the present applicant is not so innocent as projected by his learned counsel. He submits that the present applicant is the mastermind, and the said fact is clearly found out from the materials collected by the investigating officer. In fact, the land in question belonged to one Hetuba, who died in the year 1968 in Bharuch District without mutating the names of her heirs in the revenue record and the said Hetuba originally belonged to the village where the present applicant is working as Talati, and therefore, all the accused persons, in connivance with each other, to get huge monetary benefits by selling the land of Hetuba, decided to prepare a false pedigree in the name of co-accused Khumansinh, and it was the present applicant who prepared the bogus death certificate of Hetuba and then also prepared a false pedigree of the said Hetuba in the name co-accused of Khumansinh. In other words, it can be said that the entire crime is based upon the false pedigree, which was prepared by the present applicant. He also submits that even from the statements of the witnesses recorded Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined by the investigating officer, it appears that in the year 1970, there was no practice of using the stamp of the office of the Talati on any document, however, looking to the documents in question, the stamp of the Office of Talati along with the signature of the present applicant is found to be there on the said documents. Thus, it can be said that the documents have been forged by the present applicant. Not only that, statements of two witnesses, who are shown to be the witnesses in the pedigree, have also been recorded by the investigating officer, wherein they have very categorically stated that their photographs are there upon the said pedigree, but they have not made any signature upon the same, and they don't know the said Khumansingh Gambhirsingh, and therefore, there are all probabilities that the present applicant might have put their signatures, and under such circumstances, if the present applicant is not subjected to interrogation and is released on anticipatory bail, then it will be very difficult for the investigating officer to uncover the real truth, and as such, his interrogation is very much necessary. Learned APP further submits that not only that, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of co-accused, wherein he has very categorically stated that before the execution of the plan, a meeting was arranged amongst all the accused persons, wherein certain tasks were given to each accused including the present applicant, and as such, the active involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the crime is clearly spelt out from the materials collected by the investigating officer so far. Moreover, whether any amount was received by the present applicant out of the transaction in question is still to be investigated, and therefore, his custody is necessary. That apart, Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined certain important documents are still to be recovered from the Office of the Talati, and the present applicant having the key post of Talati cum Mantri in the Narukot Gram Panchayat, there are all chances that he may tamper with the said documents.
10. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
11. The present application has also been vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr. H.A. Dave appearing for the original complainant. He submits that the present applicant is the author of the entire script, who has played the main role. It is the present applicant who prepared the false pedigree and death certificate of the original owner, on the basis of which, the entire plan was executed. Therefore, it is prayed that the present application be rejected.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.
13. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Hence, custodial interrogation is required.
14. It appears from the record that there is a huge scam of Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined lakhs of rupees alleged to have been committed by the present applicant along with the other co-accused under the guise of giving huge profit upon investment being made in the land and thereby the complainant has been duped with an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. The present applicant is a Government servant holding the key post of Talati cum Mantri of Narukot Group Gram Panchayat, Taluka: Jamgughoda, District Panchayat, and serious allegations of cheating and forgery has been levelled against him. It emanates from the record that on the basis of one pedigree alleged to have been falsely prepared by the present applicant in the name of co-accused Khumansinh Gambhisinh Solanki, a huge parcel of land of altogether a different owner has been fraudulently sold out to the complainant and other co-purchasers by the said Khumansinh by taking handsome amount from them. It is not disputed by the present applicant that the said pedigree of Hetuba wherein co-accused Khumansinh has been shown to be the sole heir was not prepared by him in his capacity as Talati cum Mantri of Narukot Gram Panchayat. From the record, it appears that the original owner Hetuba was actually died on 31.05.1060, whereas in the death certificate issued by the present applicant of Hetuba, the date of death is shown as 23.03.1968 having the stamp of the office of the Talati of Narukot Gram Panchayat, and as per the statements recorded by the investigating officer of the concerned witnesses, in the year 1970, the office was not following the practice of making stamp on the documents issued from the office, and there was no such stamp available in the office at that point of time. Thus, it can be said that it is a forged document being issued Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined from the Office of the Talati.
15. Further, the statements of two persons whose photographs are found to be there on the pedigree, namely, Bharubhai Livjibhai Rathva and Ashwinbhai Raisingbhai Bariya, have also been recorded by the investigating officer, wherein they have very categorically stated that their photographs are affixed on the pedigree, but the same is not signed by them and they are not aware about such pedigree and they don't know any Khumansinh Gambhirsinh. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant, in connivance with late Khumansinh Gambhirsinh Solanki had prepared the false pedigree, which was then utilized by said Khumansinh Solanki for entering his name in the revenue records and then at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant and other co-purchasers. Moreover, the record further reveals that despite best efforts being made by the police, they could not be able to find out the Register containing the entries with regard to the pedigree, application, Panch Kyas, affidavit etc., and the said documents are still to be recovered from the Office of the Talati, and as such, to complete the heirarchy, the custodial interrogation of the present application seems to be necessary.
16. That apart, whether the present applicant has received any monetary benefits from the transaction in question is also an aspect which needs to be investigated, and for that also, the custody of the present applicant is required.
17. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of forgery Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined and misappropriation of lakhs of rupees of the complainant as well as the other people is quite grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon me to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.
18. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. After a thorough deliberation, the Supreme Court arrived at the following conclusion:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined of people.
xxx xxx xxx"
19. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
20. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail.
21. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that "the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
22. This Court after considering number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, has observed in case of MOHMED SALIM ABDUL RASID SHAIKH V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2001 [2] GLR 1580 as under;
"13. There is no scope for present applicant to urge that he may be saved from disgrace or unwarranted hardship. While entertaining the anticipatory bail application of the accused, the Court should consider various aspects such as;
[i] earlier offences registered against the applicant accused and the nature thereof including the area of activity, modus etc. if brought to the notice of the Court;
[ii] gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed. Whether custodial interrogation is, prima facie, unavoidable ?
[iii] likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
[iv] position and status of the accused individually and also with reference to the victim and witnesses; [v] likelihood of repetition of similar type of offence;
[vi] whether he would jeopardise his own life being faced with grief or grim prospects of possible conviction in the case;
[vii] likelihood of tampering with the evidence or witnesses during the process of investigation, status and stage of investigation;
[viii] plea of false implication on some special vendetta, if taken.
[ix] other relevant grounds which may apply to facts and circumstances of that particular case; "Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
23. Similarly, the Apex Court has also considered the scope of Section 438 in case of DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [FERA] V. ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA reported in 1998 [1] SCC 52. The relevant observations made in para-7 are quoted as under :-
"7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of the law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order full insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual."
24. Again, coming to the case on hand, from the allegations levelled in the FIR and the materials placed on record, it appears that the very serious allegations of forgery and misappropriation of lakhs of rupees have been made against the applicant. Moreover, the present case also falls within the category of economic offences and the amount involved in the present case is quite huge, and it is trite law that in economic Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined offences, benefit of pre-arrest bail should not be extended in favour of the accused in a casual manner. The amount involved in the present case is also quite huge, and the offence as alleged is also punishable with imprisonment not less than seven years which may extend upto life imprisonment. Thus, at this stage, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary.
25. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant to grant bail to the applicant on the ground that the other co-accused have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted as parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. In this context, I would like to refer to and rely upon some of the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Special Leave Petition No.9431 of 2023, decided on 20.11.2023, which read thus;
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Court has been challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the same is pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-
to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the appellant's role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court.
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."
26. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money- Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1, State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751. The Supreme Court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under:-
"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..."Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
27. Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case of custodial interrogation of the accused is made out by the prosecution for securing the incriminating materials from the information likely to be received from the accused, then the power under Section 482 should not be exercised in a routine manner. The presence of the applicant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to be needed to uncover the truth. Further, the discretion under Section 482 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving cheating and misappropriation of huge volume of amount, the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS should not be exercised.
28. Thus, what is discernible from the above is that while deciding anticipatory bail application, it is the first duty of the Court to see seriousness of the offence, prima facie case and interest of the society at a large. Therefore, when no special and compelling circumstances are made out and no case of false implication of present applicants in the alleged offence is made out before this Court, I am of the opinion that this Court should refrain itself from exercising its discretionary powers in favour of the present applicant at this stage.
29. In view of above discussion and considering the materials produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that there seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10182/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that at the initial stage of the investigation of the offence, grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant is likely to hamper the investigation and investigating agency is likely to lose an opportunity to exploit all the fact situation, probabilities or opportunities which the Agency may get during the custodial interrogation of a person, and therefore, keeping in mind all the factors, no interference is required at this stage. The impugned order passed by the trial court, rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant is just and proper and does not require any interference at the end of this Court.
30. In the result, the present application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court herein above at this stage while deciding the anticipatory bail application, would not come in the way of the applicant at the time as and when if ultimately the trial court is proceeded with the trial, and at the stage of consideration of regular bail application, if preferred by the applicant. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:02:07 IST 2025