Gujarat High Court
Vishnucharandasji Guruswami ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 24872
of 2025
==========================================================
VISHNUCHARANDASJI GURUSWAMI VAIKUNTPRIYADASJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVIN P BHUPTANI(8295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KISHAN Y DAVE(8293) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant who happens to be the managing trustee of Sahajanand Education Trust, Damnagar, Taluka:Lathi, District:Amreli, is apprehending arrest at the hands of Damnagar Police, Amreli, for the offense alleged to have commenced under Section Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, registered vide FIR No.11193017240218 of 2025.
2. The FIR came to be registered by one Jigarbhai Chandrakant Hingu on 29.10.2024 against five accused Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined persons and the name of the present applicant was disclosed during investigation as the main accused.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruvin P. Bhuptani who has at the outset submitted that, the applicant is the Managing Trustee of the Sahajanand Education Trust, established for the purpose of education development of the public at large. He is aged 60 years and is having blot-less career till date. According to Mr.Bhuptani, a donation to the tune of Rs.5 crores was given to the trust by way of cheque of SBI Bank, Damnagar Branch. Co- accused Vipul @ Pappu Sharma had informed that the said cheque would be presented in the bank, so as to be deposited in the Trust's account. It is further mentioned that, after some time the bank clerk had approached the original complainant i.e. the bank manager along with the cheque which was drawn in favour of Sahajanand Education Trust by Satsang, which was brought by two persons and upon comparing the signature on the cheque with the online record, the said signatures had differed, Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined and they had found the cheque to be suspicious. Subsequently, upon detailed verification, the said cheque appeared to be a false one and the FIR came to be registered. Mr.Bhuptani has submitted that, there is no iota of the evidence as regards the applicant having presented the cheque or he having told the bank manager to clear the cheque, rather there is not a whisper in the entire FIR about the role of the applicant. Mr.Bhuptani has further submitted that, the case pertains to the documentary evidence and as such, the custody of the applicant is not required. The co-accused has been released on bail hence, this application be allowed.
4. Heard Learned APP Mr.Soaham Joshi who has strongly opposed this application submitting that, all the accused including the applicant had not only connived but also conspired with each-other, to deposit a forged cheque to the tune of Rs.5 crores to the trust's account. Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of the Court to the discovery panchnama which was drawn during the course Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined of investigation by the IO, whereby, blank cheques, colour photocopies of cheques and self inked rubber stamp was discovered. Mr.Joshi has drawn attention of this Court towards affidavit of the IO which reveals that, the applicant was to pay commission to accused no.1 to 5 after the cheque of Rs.5 crores would have been deposited in the trust's account. The IO had also mentioned that, the applicant had called the original complainant to immediately deposit the said cheque in the trust's account, by making several phone calls to him. Mr.Joshi has also drawn the attention of the Court to the call record details of the applicant whereby, he had spoken to co-accused Alpesh Shah and co-accused Vipul @ Pappu Sharma by way of 125 and 453 calls, respectively, during the preceding three months of the incident. Mr.Joshi has also submitted that, the applicant has various criminal antecedents and there are number of cheque bounce cases being registered against him.
5. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs State of Punjab reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in para 23, which reads as under :-
"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice."
Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus:-
"9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid down by the apex court and considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after considering the observations made by the learned sessions judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Sumitha Pradeep Vs Arun Kumar C.K. And Anr. reported in (2022) 17 SCC 391 has observed in para 12 which is reproduced herein:-
"12.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 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 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 anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
The aforesaid observations have to be considered while deciding this application.
6. Thus, considering the submissions of both the learned advocates and more particularly the submissions of the learned APP and also considering the above referred judgements by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not deem it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, who prima-facie does not appear to be simple saint who has devoted his life for the betterment and upliftment of the society. Rather, his saffron robes only appears to be a facade.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
7. In the event, the present application is dismissed.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:29 IST 2025