Jitendrakumar Arvindlal Savani vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Jitendrakumar Arvindlal Savani vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/19878/2025                                       ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 19878
                                                of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                            JITENDRAKUMAR ARVINDLAL SAVANI
                                                         Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MS VIDITA D JAYSWAL(6730) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                        Date : 29/04/2026

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this 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. 11210015250124 of 2025, registered with DCB Police Station, District: Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 54 of BNS, 2023. Pursuant to the said FIR, the Applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 6490 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Court, Surat which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.09.2025.

2.1 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant deals with purchase and sale of natural diamond Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined from Cabin No. 02, Gurukrupa Building, Mahidharpura, Surat in the name of Namya Aadi Gems and he used to purchase diamond from the different merchants with the condition to make payment within 30 to 90 days and as per the custom, he used to make regular payments. In April, 2024, Jimit Jitendrakumar Savani and his brother in law Basav Jagdishbhai Gandhi had come to his office as Basav Gandhi is a friend of the complainant and informed him that he along with his father Jitendrakumar and brother Rutvik are dealing in natural diamond in diamond market of Mumbai and used to make payment within 45 to 60 days and they told the complainant to enter into business and the Complainant started supplying diamonds as per the orders and he gave natural diamond worth Rs. 1,35,72,580/- from 30.04.2024 to 26.09.2024 on a condition to make payment within 30 to 75 days and Jimit has signed the cheques and some diamonds were sent through Angadiya Pedhi and upon receipt of the diamons, Jitendrakumar Savani and Rutvik Savani used to confirm the receipt of the diamons and the complainant had sent diamonds through Angadiya in the name of Jimit Savani and Keyurbhai whom the Complainant does not know. The Complainant was paid Rs. 34,79,800/- in installment and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,92,780/- was not paid and upon making inquiry, the accused used to give promises to pay and thereafter, Jitendrakumar Savani has sent one amount by way of Chit on Whatsapp to the Complainant, showing that the amount is Rs. 81,78,137 against Rs. 10,09,278/- and the Complainant confronted them but they were giving promises and thereafter his phone was blocked and thus, they did not make the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined payment of remaining amount of Rs. 10,09,278 and thus, they have committed the alleged offence.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

3.2 Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that none of the ingredients of Section 409 are attracted. The Applicant has no past criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the Applicant's son has purchased goods, namely diamonds, from the Complainant, which is a purely commercial transaction, and it is not even the case of the Complainant that from the very beginning there was no intention to pay the amount and that the very purpose of entering into the transaction was to cheat. More particularly, out of Rs. 1,35,72,580/-, a sum of Rs. 34,79,800/- has been paid and the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,27,080/- is yet to be paid. Under such circumstances, it is argued that the Applicant had no intention to commit any offence. It is further submitted that the Applicant had already issued a notice on 23.11.2024 prior to the filing of the present Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined FIR. It is also submitted that the Applicant has neither any family nor business relation with his son Jimit in respect of the transaction entered into by him.

3.3 Learned Advocate further submits that there is no entrustment of property and therefore Section 409 is not attracted. It is submitted that the Complainant has lodged the FIR on 18.08.2025 belatedly, almost 11 months after the last alleged transaction dated 26.09.2024, without any explanation, which itself reflects that the parties were attempting to settle the account. Thus, the transaction being purely commercial in nature without any element of criminality, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.

3.4 Learned Advocate further submits that Rutvik has been granted interim relief in the quashing petition. It is further submitted that the Applicant is aged about 60 years and has cooperated with the investigation, and therefore, it is prayed that the present application be allowed.

4. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and has requested that this application not be entertained. Learned APP submits that Jimit and the present applicant are hand-in-glove and are running the business jointly, and that the FSL report now received clearly indicates that the present applicant had a series of talks with the Complainant and promised to pay the amount time and again.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Learned APP further submits that the present applicant had also sent a chit on WhatsApp with regard to the amount involved in the present transaction, which reflects that he was well aware of the business with the original complainant, and it is not the case that only Jimit is responsible for running the business. Learned APP further submits that the brother of Jimit, in his statement, has stated that the present applicant, Jimit, and Rutik are all in the same business.

4.1 Learned Advocate Ms. Vidita Jayswal would submit that the transcript which was handed over to the investigating agency reflects that a series of talks have taken place between the Complainant, Jimit, and the present Applicant, which indicates that the business was run by all the persons and that all are responsible for the transaction in question. It is further submitted that a huge amount of approximately Rs. 1 crore has not been paid despite several reminders and promises made over phone, for which the transcript has already been handed over to the investigating agency. It is also submitted that the FSL report has confirmed the voices of the Complainant, Milanbhai, and the Applicant, Jitendrabhai, and thus, a clear case is made out. Therefore, it is prayed that the present application be rejected.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 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 applicant 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 applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided. However, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

a) It transpires from the case papers, transcription, and public notice dated 23.11.2024, which is taken on record today as handed over by the Advocate for the Applicant, that the father of the Applicant bona fide interfered in the transaction to save his son, which does not attract any criminal liability on the present Applicant. Though prima facie it appears that the transaction between the Complainant and the applicant, if at all considered, would be a business transaction, after payment of Rs. 34,79,800, the remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore is yet to be paid. Had there been cheating, such partial payment to the tune of Rs. 38 lakhs would not have been made.

b) The applicant has no past antecedents.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined

c) The learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the applicant will not flee from justice and would remain available during the investigation as well as the trial.

d) Without discussing the merits and demerits of the case in detail, which would prejudice either side, this is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

e) It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie for the purpose of deciding the present application and shall not come in the way of deciding the trial or the bail application of the co-accused.

6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present application.

7. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in connection with the above-referred FIR, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount on the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined following conditions that applicant:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(d) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(e) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the trial Court within a week;

(f) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-

cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. 7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the bail application.

8. It is made clear that this order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency to investigate into the charges against the applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/19878/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined

9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:25:28 IST 2026