Gujarat High Court
Ravindrasinh Togubha Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
1148 of 2025
==========================================================
RAVINDRASINH TOGUBHA GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HN BRAHMBHATT(200) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR JAY MEHTA,
APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR S M KIKANI(7596) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 04/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
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. 11198020240637 of 2024 registered with the Ghogha Police Station, District Bhavnagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. N. Brahmbhatt for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik A. Dave assisted by learned APP Mr. Jay Mehta for the respondent - State and learned Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined advocate Mr. S. M. Kikani for the original complainant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the so-called incident is occurred during the period between 18.08.2017 to 22.06.2022, whereas, FIR is registered on 30.08.2024 against total three accused persons, wherein, name of the applicant is mentioned at serial No.3. He submits that there is gross delay in registering the FIR. He has read the FIR and submits that role attributed to the present applicant is very limited. He further submits that in fact applicant himself is the victim and co-accused have cheated him for which he had also preferred one application in the form of complaint before the Superintendent of Police by narrating entire sequence of events as to how he was cheated by the co-accused persons and just to get out from their liability, the co-accused persons have framed the applicant by bringing him in the transaction in question. The applicant is not directly and/or indirectly connected with the commission of crime. He further submits that there is no antecedent against the applicant. He further submits that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and thereafter the investigating officer concerned has submitted a detailed Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined report for the purpose of addition of other sections under the provisions of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act ('GUJCTOC Act' for short). He further submits that in fact there is no antecedent reported against the applicant and therefore those provisions would not be applicable to the case of the applicant. He further submits that if the Court would go through the contents of the application in the form of complaint given by the applicant to the S.P., Bhavnagar, in that event, entire picture would be crystallized. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt further submits that the main accused Mahavirsinh was the Power of Attorney holder of the original land owner and on the strength of the said fact, he has executed registered sale deed in favour of the present applicant and with a sole intent to reverse the said transaction, the said Mahavirsinh had received huge volume of money from the complainant. The present applicant had entered into said reverse transaction of sale deed solely on the ground that he was duped by the main accused Mahavirsinh. The applicant has not received any monetary gain and therefore considering the aforesaid factual aspects, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed.
Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that a well designed plan is organized by the members of the syndicate with a sole intent to get huge amount as ransom from the innocent and gullible persons. The applicant is one of the members of the syndicate. He further submits that it is the specific modus of the syndicate, whereby, they used to identify the valuable properties, create false and fabricated documents of the said properties, find out prospective purchasers of the said properties and demanded huge amount of ransom from them based on those forged documents. He further submits that in the instant case, the accused No.1 has created forged power of attorney of the original owners and based on that, sold out the land in question to the applicant and accused No.2 without the knowledge of the original owners. He has drawn the attention of this Court to two forged power of attorneys executed by the original land owners in favour of accused No.1 and submitted that, if the Court would make cursory glance upon the said documents, in that event it would have been found out that in one of the documents, Notary Advocate Mr. B. B. Gandhi has signed the said document. The said document was Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined executed on 18.07.2017, whereas, Mr. B. B. Gandi passed away on 23.02.2010. The death certificate of Mr. Gandhi is also placed on record. He further submits that on the same day, another forged power of attorney of the original owners was also executed by the accused No.1, wherein, Notary Advocate Mr. Dinesh T. Rathod has put his signature. He further submits that statement of Mr. Dinesh Rathod is also recorded wherein he has specifically stated that the said document has never been notarized by him. Thus, the aforesaid both the PoAs are forged and fabricated. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Dave further submits that it is the specific case of the original owners that they even did not know the accused No.1 and they have not executed any power of attorney in his favour, in spite of that, the accused No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of the applicant and accused No.2, who are acting at the behest of accused No.1, with an intention to get ransom amount from the innocent property holders who have no option but to surrender against the accused persons as they are very headstrong persons having criminal antecedents. It is the specific case of the complainant that accused No.1 has demanded huge amount of ransom from the complainant for not raising any objection against the sale of the land in question in Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined favour of the complainant.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave submits that so far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, out of the amount of ransom obtained from the complainant, accused No.1 has given Rs.5.5 lakh to the applicant and during the course of investigation, it has also come on record that applicant has also indulged into such kind of criminal activity for other properties as well and said fact is also fortified from the statements of various witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. He further submits that during the course of investigation, it has also come on record that mother of accused No.1 had also executed an Agreement for Sale with the applicant, whereby, the applicant alleged to have purchased 40 open residential plots from the mother of accused No.1 based upon forged and fabricated documents and said fact is also fortified from the statements of original plot holders, wherein, they have very categorically stated that they are the owners of the plots and they have never sold their plots to anyone including applicant. He submits that cumulative effect of all the documents placed on record goes on to show that applicant is also one of the members of the syndicate a well designed plan is organized by the members of the Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined syndicate to get amount of ransom from the original owners by creating forged and fabricated documents. He further submits that active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly found out and other co-accused person, who was apprehended by the investigating officer, has preferred bail application after submission of charge-sheet before this Court and his application has not been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Copy of the said order is also placed on record. He further submits that in fact there is express bar under Section 20(3) of the GUJCTOC for entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. He, therefore, submits that when prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out, he may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7. Learned advocate Mr. S. M. Kikani appearing on behalf of original complainant has submitted that almost all the arguments have been canvassed by learned Public Prosecutor and therefore he is adopting those arguments. He submits that he has also filed a detailed reply which clearly goes on to show how the entire syndicate is operating and against the accused persons number of offences have been registered. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and role played by the applicant, he may Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicants including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
9. It is required to be noted that normal procedure prescribed for curtailing the right to life & liberty, is that the investigating officer can arrest the accused even without warrant. No doubt this Court has extraordinary power to protect an innocent person. However, this power has to be Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
10. It is well settled that an application preferred for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted in exceptional cases. The parameters and considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would like to refer and rely upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303
(iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, power under Section 438
CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of
allegations and stage of investigations,
held investigating agency must be given
sufficient freedom in process of
investigation. Appellant not entitled to
anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation".
11. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.21, observed as under:-
"21. 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."
12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as this application has been preferred under the provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, I would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Ors.,, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, more particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as under :-
"14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When we carefully analyze this section, the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also pressed in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; 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; The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Whereas the accusation have been made only with the object to injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case."
13. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is found out that a syndicate is formed by the accused persons with a sole intent to get huge ransom amount from the original property owners. The applicant is one of the members of the syndicate. It is also found out from the material placed on record that it is the specific modus of the syndicate, whereby, they used to identify the valuable properties, create false and fabricated documents of the said properties, find out prospective purchasers of the said properties and demanded huge amount of ransom from them based on those forged documents. It is found out that in the instant case, as a part of conspiracy, the accused No.1 has created forged power of attorney of the original owners and based on that, sold out the land in question to the applicant and accused No.2 without the knowledge of the original Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined owners. The accused No.1 has created two forged and fabricated PoAs of the original owners. It is found out that in one of the PoAs, Notary Advocate Mr. B. B. Gandhi has signed the said document. The said document was executed on 18.07.2017, whereas, Mr. B. B. Gandi passed away on 23.02.2010. The death certificate of Mr. Gandhi is also placed on record. It is also found out from the record that on the same day, another forged power of attorney of the original owners was also executed by the accused No.1, wherein, Notary Advocate Mr. Dinesh T. Rathod has put his signature. I have read the statement of said Dinesh Rathod, wherein, he has specifically stated that the said document has never been notarized by him. Thus, the aforesaid both the Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by the original owners in favour of accused No.1 are found to be forged and fabricated. Moreover, it is the specific case of the original owners that they even did not know the accused No.1 and they have not executed any power of attorney in his favour, in spite of that, as a part of conspiracy, the accused No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of the applicant and accused No.2, who were acting at the behest of accused No.1, with an intention to get an amount of ransom from the innocent persons. It is the specific case of the Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined complainant that accused No.1 has demanded huge amount of ransom from the complainant for not raising any objection against the sale of the land in question in favour of the complainant. Now, so far as the role of the present applicant, as a member of syndicate, is concerned, it is found out from the record that out of the amount of ransom obtained by the accused No.1 from the complainant, accused No.1 has given Rs.5.5 lakh to the applicant. The said fact is also fortified from the statement of one of the witnesses viz. Jayeshbhai @ Jaybhai Mori. It is also found out from the record that applicant has also indulged into such kind of criminal activity for other properties as well and said fact is also fortified from the statements of various witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. It is also found out that one Mrs. Krishnaba Kanubha Gohil - mother of accused No.1 had also executed an Agreement for Sale with the applicant, whereby, the applicant alleged to have purchased 40 open residential plots from the mother of accused No.1 based upon forged and fabricated documents and said fact is also fortified from the statements of original plot holders, wherein, they have very categorically stated that they are the owners of the plots and they have never sold their plots to anyone. Thus, from the materials placed on record, prima facie, it is found out that applicant is also one of the Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined members of the syndicate and a well designed plan is organized by the members of the syndicate to get amount of ransom from the original owners by creating forged and fabricated documents. Thus, in the prima facie opinion of this Court active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly found out. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the investigation is at crucial stage and considering the gravity of the offence committed by the accused persons in connivance with each other, in the opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529 held that merely because custodial interrogation is not required, by itself, could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court, while hearing the anticipatory bail application, has to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
15. Thus, while taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as also ratio laid down in other decisions as stated above, I have gone through the contents of the FIR, which is placed on record and also considered the affidavit of the investigating officer filed before the learned Judge concerned opposing the bail application preferred by the applicants. Upon going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that prima facie case is made out against the Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1148/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined applicant and material collected so far suggests the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime.
16. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the applicant has failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail. More so, investigation is still going on in the present case. It is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under Section 482 BNSS, is somewhat discretionary in character and it is to be exercised with caution in exceptional cases.
17. Hence, the present application seeking anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
18. Needless to say that the observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of this pre-arrest bail application, and shall not influence in any other proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:33:56 IST 2025