Gujarat High Court
Panchal Ashish Jayantilal vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6459/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 6459 of 2025
==========================================================
PANCHAL ASHISH JAYANTILAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BAKUL S PANCHAL(3676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MANSI S PANCHAL(12033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 03/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant-
accused has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory
bail in connection with the FIR be i ng C. R.
No . 1 1 1 9 1 0 4 4 2 4 0 1 6 3 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Ghatlodia
Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offe nce s puni sha bl e
unde r S ec tions 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bakul S. Panchal appearing for
the applicant and learned APP Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the
Respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that earlier
the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 63 of
2025 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this court vide
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6459/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
order dated 12.2.2025. However, after the withdrawal of the
said application, the other co-accused namely Amrish S/o
Ramanbhai Panchal came to be considered for grant of bail by
this court which entitles the present applicant also to be
enlarged on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present successive
anticipatory bail application is preferred by the present
applicant.
3.1 He submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present offence as there is gross delay in
lodging the FIR on the part of the first informant. The incident
alleged in the FIR has taken place on 4.3.2024, whereas the FIR
for the said offence came to be lodged on 13.4.2024. The delay
caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained. Prior to
lodging the FIR, the first informant had given complaint to the
Police Inspector of Ghatlodia Police Station wherein the
applicant has not been named as an accused, nor any overt act
has been attributed to the present applicant in the said
complaint. Thus, the implication of the applicant in the present
offence is nothing but an afterthought.
3.2 He further submitted that the allegations levalled against
the present applicant in the FIR are unfounded. He further
submitted that it is alleged against the present applicant that the
digital signature certificate of the first informant had been
misused by the co-accused, however it was an established fact
that the digital signature certificate being a cryptographic in
nature, it cannot be copied or misused and thus, there was no
possibility of digital signature certificate of the first informant
being misused by the present applicant or for that matter any of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6459/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
the co-accused persons.
3.3 He submitted that filing of DIR-11 Form with the Registrar
of the Companies was done through the e-filing portal. The said
process requires the complainant's active participation and it
can only be done by logging in with valid email-id and OTP will
be sent to the mobile number of the complainant. Thus, there
was no procedure which can be carried out in the absence of the
first informant. The allegations in the FIR levalled against the
present applicant are far from the truth. He, therefore,
submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the
present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP for the
respondent contending that this is a successive anticipatory bail
application filed by the applicant. After earlier anticipatory
application was withdrawn by him there being no change in
circumstances thereafter, the present application is not
maintainable. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present
application.
5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the
material placed on record. At the outset it is required to be
noted that earlier the applicant had filed Criminal Misc.
Application No.63 of 2025. The matter was argued by learned
advocate for the applicant at a substantial length and after
having argued the matter at length, since this court was not
inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant,
learned advocate for the applicant had sought permission to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6459/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
withdraw the present application and thus, the said application
was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 12.2.2025. The
fact that learned advocate for the applicant after arguing the
matter at length, had sought permission to withdraw the
application, since this court was not inclined to exercise its
discretion in favour of the applicant, indicated that the applicant
wanted to surrender to the process of law. However, from the
record it appears that the applicant after having withdrawn the
aforesaid application has not co-operated with the investigation
and has not surrendered to the process of law and is absconding
presently.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of
G.R.Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, has observed,
"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications
ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case dairy
and the status report clearly indicated that the accused
(respondent No.2) is absconding and not cooperating with the
investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances
cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications,
once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same
Judge."
5.1 In another case of Mohd. Sharif Siddiqui @ Sharif
Siddiqui Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide its order dated 7.12.2022 has observed,
"Considering the fact that the earlier anticipatory bail
application was preferred and the same came to be withdrawn
with liberty to surrender before the trial court and apply for
regular bail thereafter second anticipatory bail application shall
not be maintainable, more particularly in the absence of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6459/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/04/2025
undefined
changed circumstances."
5.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has pressed into
service the order passed by this court on 12.2.2025 in Criminal
Misc. Application No.839 of 2025 as change in circumstances
after the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was
withdrawn. It is pertinent to note that the said application and
the earlier application filed by the applicant were heard
simultaneously on 12.2.2025 and since this court was not
inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present
applicant, learned advocate for the applicant had withdrawn the
said application filed by the applicant, whereas the case of the
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.839 of 2025 was
considered for grant of regular bail, therefore it does not lie in
the mouth of the learned advocate for the applicant to claim
parity with the order passed by this court in Criminal Misc.
Application No.839 of 2025. Thus, the present applicant is an
abuse of process of law.
6. Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the
present Application is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- which
shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services
Committee.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
Manshi
