Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Nagindas Bhayani vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 02/09/2025
Pronounced On : 04/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
24797 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI NAGINDAS BHAYANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PITAMBER ABICHANDANI WITH VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
TATVDEEP J JANI(7227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
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 Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined C.R.No.11198001240584 of 2024 registered with the Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pitamber Abichandani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Salil M. Thakore for the original complainant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Pitamber Abichandani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for the applicant submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the so-called incident is occurred during the period between 01.01.1996 to 16.11.2024, whereas, FIR is registered on 17.11.2024 against total 3 persons, wherein, name of the applicant is mentioned at serial No.3. He further submits that FIR is very lengthy but the sum and substance of the charge of accusations levelled against the applicant is that applicant and accused No.2 were the erstwhile Presidents of Madhav Darshan Non- Trading Corporation (NTC) during the period between 11.05.2019 to 04.06.2024 and from 12.06.2024, complainant had taken over the charge of President of the said NCT and after his taking over the charge of President, during the internal inquiry, it has come to the notice of the complainant that all the accused persons have, in connivance with each other, created Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined forged and bogus share certificate as well as allotment letter of shop No.102 of the said NCT in favour of one Gitaba i.e. the wife of accused No.2 and destroyed/misplaced the original record pertaining to the period in question and thereby they had committed the offences as enumerated in the body of the FIR. He further submits that there is gross delay in registering the FIR in question and complainant has miserably failed to explain the cause of delay. He further submits that in column No.8, it is specifically stated that in the year 2024, after the complainant is elected as the President and subsequently during the course of internal inquiry, the commission of crime by the accused persons has come to his notice and therefore FIR is registered but the said fact is falsified on the basis of documents supplied by the applicant along with the memo of the petition. He further submits that in fact complainant is the owner of number of shops of the said NCT and since very beginning, complainant was having intention to purchase shop No.102 and said fact is also found out from the materials placed on record and inference in that regard is required to be drawn in view of the fact that the accused No.1 had in fact taken the shop from the original owner in the year 1996 by way of executing the deed and since then he was in possession of the said shop. He Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined further submits that during the interregnum period, disputes have been cropped between the original owner and accused No.1 and suit in that regard is also filed by the accused No.1 before the competent civil Court, wherein, complainant herein had also preferred an application specifically stating that his interest is also involved in the said property and therefore he may be joined as a party in the said proceedings. The said application is preferred on 12.12.1996, which clearly goes on to show that complainant was well aware that the dispute is going on between the original shop owner and accused No.1. He submits that thereafter, both the parties had entered into transaction and accused No.1 had purchased the said property from the original owner and subsequently accused No.1 had sold the said property in the name of wife of accused No.2 and on the strength of the said materials, share certificate has been issued by the present applicant in favour of one Gitaba P. Jadeja i.e. the wife of accused No.2. He further submits that if any member of the NCT would come with the case that his original share certificate is lost, in that event, being the President of the NCT, applicant has to issue duplicate share certificate in favour of the said member by following due procedure of law. He submits that if the Hon'ble Court would go Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined through the contents of the document in question, in that event, it would have been found out that the said document is prepared and signed by the present applicant, whereupon, seal of the NCT/society is made. He submits that it is not the case of the prosecution that applicant has impersonated himself as a third party and signed the said share certificate. Therefore, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, it can safely be said that the present applicant has not committed forgery of any documents and prosecuting agency has miserably failed to prove that the basic and essential ingredients mentioned in the provision of 'forgery' are made out against the applicant.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pitamber Abichandani for the applicant further submits that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and as soon as the applicant has come to know about the said fact, immediately he rushed to this court and considering the charge of accusations levelled against the applicant, prima facie, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was of the opinion that applicant is required to be protected and therefore protection is granted in favour of the applicant. He further submits that during the interregnum period, applicant Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined has been called upon by the investigating officer and on number of occasions, applicant had gone to the investigating officer and his statements have also been recorded by the investigating officer. He further submits that even the specimen signature of the applicant was also obtained so as to get opinion of the handwriting expert. He further submits that admittedly there was ongoing dispute between the accused No.2 and complainant and said fact is clearly fond out from the record. He submits that complainant herein has filed one regular civil suit against the NCT and the entire managing body of NCT including the accused No.2 in the year 2020 and in the said suit, complainant has also preferred an application vide Exh. 5, which was not entertained by the Court concerned. The said suit also came to be withdrawn by the complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Abichandani has referred all those documents and submitted that considering the aforesaid overall materials available on record, at the most, it can be said that there was negligence on the part of the applicant as at the time of issuance of the share certificate in favour of wife of the accused No.2, applicant herein had not verified and/or thoroughly checked the available record and therefore there was no criminality attached to the act of the present Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined applicant. He further submits that at the instance of the request made by one of the members of the NCT, applicant had issued share certificate in favour of Gitaba Gohil i.e. wife of accused No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Abichandani submits that in fact actual beneficiary is the Gitaba Gohil i.e. wife of accused No.2, who is already protected by this court in quashing petition. Not only that, accused No.1 is also protected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that there is no past antecedent registered against the applicant and therefore looking to the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing on behalf of respondent- State has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that name as well as specific role of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the body of the FIR as well as documents collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. He further submits that it is the specific case of the complainant that record of the society/NCT is destroyed/misplaced by the accused persons so that newly elected body of the NCT could not verify the veracity of those documents. Learned Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined APP Mr. Soni further submits that in fact during the course of investigation, investigating officer has recorded the statement of secretary as well as other office bearers of the NCT, wherein, they had very categorically stated that at the time of issuing share certificate and allotment letter, all those persons have raised objection and informed the applicant that without verifying the record, share certificate cannot be issued in favour of the said person. Learned APP Mr. Soni further submits that in fact at the time of obtaining share certificate, bogus and forged undated allotment letter is also placed on record. He further submits that the investigating officer has also recorded the statements of erstwhile Secretary as well as President, who alleged to have endorsed the said undated allotment letter, and in their statements, those witnesses have very categorically stated that they had never signed and issued the said allotment letter in favour of Gitaba Gohil and the signatures upon the said document do not belong to them and said document is forged and fabricated one. He further submits that statements of number of witnesses have been recorded by the IO and all those witnesses have very categorically stated that despite the warning issued by those persons to the applicant, he had signed and issued the share Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined certificate in favour of Gitaba without obtaining the signature of the secretary. He further submits that statement of the Secretary of the NCT is also recorded by the IO, wherein, he has very categorically stated that in stead of signing the said document, he has chosen to resign from the post of Secretary and said fact is well within the knowledge of the applicant, despite the said fact, he issued share certificate in favour of wife of accused No.2. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspects and materials placed on record, active involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out. Therefore, considering the role played by the applicant at the time of commission of crime, his bail application may not be entertained.
7. Present application is strongly opposed by learned advocate Mr. Salil M. Thakore for the original complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore submits that almost all the facts have already been brought to the notice of this Court by learned APP and therefore he need not have to say much. However, learned advocate Mr. Thakore submits that complainant has opposed the present application by way of filing an affidavit-in- reply and along with the affidavit-in-reply, he has produced original allotment letter as well as forged allotment letter and submitted that if Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined both the documents are put together in juxtaposition and conjointly read, in that event, it would have been found out that date is not mentioned in the forged allotment letter. He further submits that as per the case of the prosecution, original property was purchased by the owner of Bonny Travels. He rented the said property to accused No.1 - Vimal H. Patel and thereafter disputes have been cropped up between the original owner of the property and accused No.1 and litigation is filed before the competent Court. The said property is never ever transferred in the name of accused No.1 - Vimal H. Patel. He further submits that it is the specific case of Vimal Patel that original owner has executed Agreement to Sale (Satakhat) in his favour but in fact the sale deed of the property in question has never been executed by the original owner in favour of accused no.1. In fact the property was running in the name of owner of Bonny Travels and it has never been transferred in the name of any of the accused persons. He further submits that since very beginning it is the specific case of the prosecution that with a sole intent to show undue favour to the accused No.2 and his wife, applicant herein had created bogus allotment letter with the help of and in connivance with other accused persons and issued share Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined certificate in favour of Gitaben Gohil i.e. the wife of accused No.2, despite the warning issued by other office bearers of the said Corporation and said fact is fortified from the statements of those witnesses. He further submits that the erstwhile President and Secretary, who alleged to have signed the forged allotment letter, have very categorically stated that they have not signed the said document and it is forged one and therefore allotment letter upon which reliance is being placed by the applicant at the time of issuance of share certificate is forged one. He further submits that it is true that being a President of the Corporation, if the share certificate and other documents relating to the ownership of the shop of the members of the Corporation are missing, in that event, the applicant has to issue duplicate share certificate in favour of the said member of the Corporation, but at the same time, it is the duty of the applicant to follow the due procedure prescribed for the same. Here, in the instant case, without verifying the original record and without ascertaining the ownership of the shop in question and without following due procedure for issuance of a duplicate share certificate, applicant has mechanically issued the duplicate share certificate in favour of wife of accused No.2 and that too with a sole Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined intent to favour the accused No.2. He further submits that so far as the question of delay in registering the FIR is concerned, as soon as complainant has taken over the charge as a President, he sought for the original record from the earlier managing body of the Corporation and as they failed to provide the record, complainant has initiated process of internal inquiry and during the course of such inquiry, it has come to the notice of the complainant that all the accused persons have, in connivance with each other, forged the allotment letter and share certificate qua shop in question and therefore FIR has been registered against them. He further submits that important and necessary record of the Corporation is missing and therefore at this juncture, custodial interrogation of the applicant is badly needed. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid factual aspects, when direct involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out, he may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record, it is found out that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons have, in connivance with each other, created forged Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined allotment letter and based upon that document, the applicant, being the President of the Corporation at the relevant point of time, issued bogus share certificate in favour of one Gitaben Gohil i.e. the wife of accused No.2 and thereby all the accused persons have committed the offences as enumerated in the body of the FIR. It is alleged against the applicant that being the President of the Corporation, he has misused his position and without verifying the veracity of the documents placed before it, he has signed the bogus share certificate and issued in favour of the wife of accused No.2. It is the case of the applicant that being a President, he has to act and issue fresh/duplicate share certificate, if the member of the Corporation has made an application that his/her share certificate and other documents pertaining to the ownership are missing, whereas, it is the specific case of the complainant that the property in question was never ever transferred in the name of any of the accused persons including the wife of accused No.2 and with a sole intent to give undue benefit to the accused No.2 and his wife, applicant has acted in a particular manner and thereby misused his position. I have also perused the contents of the FIR as well as other corroborative materials in the form of statements of the witnesses and considering the said materials, I am of the opinion that, prima facie, involvement of the Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined applicant in the commission of crime is found out. 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. Therefore, at this stage of deciding the present application seeking anticipatory bail, without discussing the evidence in detail, I restrict myself to the extent of giving prima facie opinion of involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime.
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 exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
10. 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:-
Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined "It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It 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 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 Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
11. Thus, while taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre as also ratio laid down in other decisions, 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 applicant. Upon going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that prima facie case is made out against the applicant and material collected so far suggests the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime.
12. 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 Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24797/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined in exceptional cases.
13. Hence, the present application seeking anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
14. 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 FURTHER ORDER After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. Viral Shah has requested for extension of interim relief granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby, applicant is protected. He submits that the interim relief granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is in operation since long and therefore so as to enable the applicant to approach the higher forum, the same may be extended. However, the request made by learned advocate Mr. Shah has been strongly objected by learned advocate Mr. Aneesh Sadhwani for learned advocate Mr. Salil Thakore. In the facts of the present case and considering the observations made in the present judgment, I am of the considered opinion that since the present application seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed, the relief cannot be extended. Therefore, the request of learned advocate Mr. Shah for extension of interim relief granted earlier is refused.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:25:46 IST 2025