Pinkeshbhai Vadilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Pinkeshbhai Vadilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/20298/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20298
                                                  of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                                   PINKESHBHAI VADILAL PATEL
                                                             Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. NILAY A THAKER(7275) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                              Date : 01/10/2025

                                                               ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. 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.11218009240696 of 2024 registered with Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Learned advocate 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 the present applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined offence. He submits that looking to the allegations made in the FIR, no offence as alleged can be said to have been made out against the present applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant is residing at London since 02.09.2023, and as such, considering the period of alleged offence, i.e, during the period between 01.01.2024 and 16.11.2024, the applicant never met the complainant nor talked with her, and therefore, with a view to harass the present applicant, the present FIR has been filed after a period of ten months, and as such, the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that there is not a whisper in the entire body of the FIR that the present applicant has ever talked with the complainant or that he has received any amount from the complainant or created any document, as referred to in the FIR, and as such, in the absence of any allegation with regard to receiving any money by the applicant and creating any document, no offence of breach of trust, cheating or forgery can be said to have been committed by the present applicant. He also submits that the present applicant has nothing to do with the business of the co- accused, and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence as he happens to be the brother of the accused No.3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that even the charge- sheet has also been filed against the co-accused, and in the charge-sheet no specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant. Moreover, the alleged transaction took place between the complainant and accused No.1 namely, Mukesh Virdas Patel, who has already been released on regular bail. The present applicant is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the crime. Even the amount of Rs.5,10,000/-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined which was received by the present applicant, has already been repaid to the complainant, however, with a view to extort more money from the applicant, the present FIR has been lodged. Furthermore, there is no direct or indirect transaction in the account of the present applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant is a reputed persons, doing job in abroad, and just with a view to grab some money from the applicant, the false and frivolous FIR has been registered against him. Moreover, if we look at the FIR, the allegation being presumptive is equal between present applicant and the co-accused who has already been released, and in that circumstances, principle of parity would be attracted in the present case. He submits that the present applicant is a young man aged about 37 years, having no past antecedents. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

4. 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 also submits that the present applicant has committed a serious offence. Learned APP further submits that the present applicant is residing abroad, and as such, there are all possible chances of he being fled away. Learned APP also submits that as the complainant wanted to go abroad for doing the work of a nurse, the present applicant, in connivance with the other co-accused, created bogus work orders as well false and fabricated letter having the seal of U.K. Government, and sent it to the complainant and thereby obtained huge amount from the complainant through online mode or through Angadiya firm. He Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined submits that on the basis of aforesaid false and fabricated documents, when the complainant applied for Visa, not only her Visa application was rejected, but she has been banned for ten years by the U.K. Government due to production of false and fabricated documents. Thus, from the materials collected so far, prima faice, the involvement of the present applicant is clearly found out in the commission of the crime. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that all the accused persons, in connivance with each other, have committed the offence. It is submitted that applicant has failed to establish case for extraordinary relief. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. 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.

7. It appears from the record that the present applicant has been named in the FIR and very serious allegations of breach Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined of trust, forgery and cheating have been made against him. It further appears from the record that the present applicant has issued a false and fabricated letter-head having the seal of the U.K. Government, which as per the affidavit filed by the investigating officer, has been verified from the 365 Divine Care Co., upon which, it has been informed by the said Company through email that the said letter-head is bogus one. It further appears that due to such false and fabricated documents provided by the accused persons, which was then submitted before the Embassy by the complainant for getting the Visa, the complainant has been banned for ten years by the U.k. Government. It also appears from the police papers that an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- has been fraudulently obtained by the present applicant from the complainant either through online transactions or by Angadiya firm. Thus, it appears that the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss as also an irreparable professional harm as a direct consequence of the accused's illegal acts. Not only that the allegations are to the effect that the present applicant has also administered threat to the complainant as well as the husband of the complainant.

8. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that there is a huge fraud of lakhs of rupees alleged to have been committed by the present applicant along with the other co-accused under the guise of providing work Visa of U.K. to the complainant, and thereby the complainant has been duped with an amount of Rs.27,00,000/-. Further, the offence with which the applicant is charged with is an economic offence and is against the interest of the society.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined

9. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of misappropriating lakhs of rupees of the complainant 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.

10. 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 6 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined of people.

xxx xxx xxx"

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."

14. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined [ix] other relevant grounds which may apply to facts and circumstances of that particular case; "

15. 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."

16. 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 misappropriation of lakhs of rupees have been made against the applicant. Moreover, the present case also falls within the category of economic Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined offences and the amount involved in the present case is quite huge, and it is trite law that in economic 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 life imprisonment. Thus, at this stage, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary.

17. 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, Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High 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."

18. 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 Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed 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..."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined

19. 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.

20. 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 applicant 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.

21. Further, the present applicant is involved in white collar socio-economic offence which constitute a class apart and Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20298/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined needs to be visited with a different approach. The economic offences adversely affect the economic and social fabric of the country. In such circumstances also, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would frustrate the investigation.

22. 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 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.

23. 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 14 of 14 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:26:01 IST 2025