Gujarat High Court
Ramesh Gordhanlal Sirvi vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
17808 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESH GORDHANLAL SIRVI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KARAN Y VYAS(8539) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DAXAY D PATEL(6633) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 22/09/2025
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. 11210015250096 of 2025 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Karan Vyas for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Daxay Patel for the original First Informant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the applicant Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the so-called incident is occurred during the period between 02.08.2024 to 12.10.2024. He further submits that FIR is registered against total 19 persons. He further submits that in fact at the time of registration of the FIR, the complainant has narrated the entire sequence of events of incident, wherein, name of the applicant is specifically mentioned. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas further submits that the transaction took place between the applicant and complainant is clearly of the nature of commercial transaction, wherein, applicant herein had purchased certain goods worth Rs.3,70,000/- from the complainant with the help of broker, whose name is mentioned at serial no.2 in the FIR. He further submits that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,70,000/-, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid by the applicant to the complainant. The said transaction took place during the period between 21.09.2024 to 11.10.2024, whereas, FIR is registered on 09.07.2025. Thus, there is gross delay of nearly 9 months in registering the FIR. The applicant is a businessman and there is no past antecedent against the applicant. He, therefore, submits that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on suitable terms and conditions.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Shah has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that under the guise of commercial transaction, present applicant has duped the complainant and there was bad intention on the part of the applicant to cheat the complainant since inception and said fact is fortified from the act, action and conduct of the applicant. He further submits that applicant had purchased the goods from the complainant by giving false assurance that the entire amount of goods will be paid to the complainant within few days but event after passing of more than 11 months, except an amount of Rs.50,000/-, complainant has not received due amount from the applicant and applicant has also not shown any plausible cause of not making the payment of due amount to the complainant. He further submits that the goods worth Rs.3,70,000/- has already been received by the applicant. Thus, from the materials collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly found out. He, therefore, submits that this is not a fit case, where discretionary powers of anticipatory bail can be exercised by this Hon'ble Court.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Daxay Patel appearing for the original First Informant has objected Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined present application with vehemence and submitted that almost all the arguments have been canvassed by the learned APP and therefore he is adopting those arguments. He further submits that since inception, there was bad intention on the part of the applicant and said fact is clearly fortified from the materials available on record. He submits that now-a-days a new trend is developed by the accused persons, whereby, they used to give assurance to the vendors that within reasonable period as per the prevailing practice of trade, they would make the payment of the goods and putting reliance upon the said assurance given by the accused persons, vendors generally used to deliver goods to the accused persons and for such goods, accused used to pay small amount in the form of part payment to show their bona fide and thereafter do not make the payment of a single penny to the vendors solely under the belief that if at all any FIR would be registered against them, in that event, under the guise of defence of commercial transaction and giving criminal veneer to a civil dispute, they seek to get themselves enlarged on bail and they would be enlarged by the competent Court considering the said defence. He further submits that it is not the case of the applicant that the good supplied by the complainant was damaged one and Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined not up to the mark. The applicant has received the goods, utilized it and earned profit out of the said goods and without assigning any plausible reasons for not making the payment of the due amount to the complainant, merely on the basis of defence of transaction in question being in the nature of commercial transaction, the discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it is found out that during the period between 21.09.2024 to 11.10.2024, applicant herein had purchased goods worth Rs.3,70,000/- from the complainant with the help of accused No.2. Out of the said amount of Rs.3,70,000/-, merely an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid by the applicant to the complainant and though promised, rest of the amount has not been paid by the applicant even after passing of more than 11 months. The applicant has also not given any explanation to the complainant for not making the payment of rest of the amount to him. Thus, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, the intention of the applicant was not good since inception and with a sole intent to dupe and cheat the complainant, he has acted in a particular manner. I am in complete agreement with the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined argument canvassed by learned advocate for the First Informant that now-a-days a new trend is developed by the accused persons, whereby, they used to give assurance to the vendors to make the payment of the goods within reasonable period as per the prevailing practice of trade and they used to pay meager amount in the form of part payment to show their bona fide and thereafter do not make the payment of a single penny under the belief that if at all any FIR would be registered against them, in that event, under the guise of defence of commercial transaction and giving criminal veneer to a civil dispute, they seek to get themselves enlarged on bail and they would be enlarged by the competent Court considering the said defence. In the opinion of this Court, this kind of illegal activities are reuqired to be curbed down by taking stringent view. I have also perused other materials collected by the investigating officer. Thus, from the materials collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out.
8. It is required to be noted that no doubt this Court has extraordinary powers to protect an innocent person, however, the said power has to be exercised by the Court with due Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined circumspection. 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 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 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17808/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 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 custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
9. Hence, the present application seeking anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.
10. 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 8 of 8 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 22:24:06 IST 2025