Gujarat High Court
Soyeb Ishak Mevawala vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 05/08/2025
Pronounced On : 12/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
12035 of 2025
==========================================================
SOYEB ISHAK MEVAWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV 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.11210061250100 of 2025 registered with
the Lalgate Police Station, Surat City for the
alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. S. Timbalia for
the applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for
respondent - State and learned advocate Ms.
Kruti Shah for the original complainant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia submits that as
per the case of the complainant, the so-called
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
incident is occurred during the period from
April, 2019 to 22.03.2025 and FIR is registered
on 22.03.2025. He, therefore, submits that there
is gross delay in registering the FIR and
complainant has miserably failed to explain the
cause of delay in filing the FIR. The FIR is
filed against total five known persons and one
unknown person, wherein applicant is shown at
serial No.3. He further submits that so far as
accused Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, they are
enlarged on anticipatory bail, so far as accused
No.2 is concerned, he is protected by this Court
and accused no.4 has not preferred any
application before any of the Courts. He further
submits that in fact at the time of registration
of the FIR, complainant has not disclosed the
correct facts before the investigating officer.
He has come with the specific case that he is
the owner of flat Nos. 501 and 502 but in fact
the properties of flat Nos. 502 and 503 were
transferred by the original owner in the name of
the applicant herein. He further submits that if
the Court would go through the contents of the
sale deed executed by the original owner in
favour of the applicant, in that event, it would
have been found out that the said sale deed has
been executed qua property Nos. 502 and 503.
Therefore, there are flaws in the narration of
facts on the part of the complainant in the FIR.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia further submits
that in fact complainant himself has checkered
history and number of offences have been
registered against him. It is the specific case
of the prosecution that complainant has taken
certain amounts from the applicant and as he
could not be able to repay the said amount
within the time framed, disputes have been
cropped up between them.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia further submits
that in fact complainant herein had registered
one FIR against other accused persons before the
concerned police station on 10.03.2025, wherein,
names of certain accused persons are common. It
is an admitted position of fact that incident in
question occurred in the year 2023, and
therefore, at that relevant point of time, the
complainant could have disclosed the name as
well as specific role of the applicant in the
said FIR. However, he has not disclosed the name
of the applicant in the said FIR and after a
period of 12 days then after, present FIR is
registered by narrating although different
version of story. Therefore, as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.
T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 181, when the transaction between
the parties is consistent and continuous one,
then the complainant could have to disclose the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
said fact at the time of registration of the
said FIR and/or by recording his further
statement, if he could have disclosed the factum
of the earlier incident, based upon which,
addition of more sections as well as name of the
applicant and other accused involved in the
commission of crime could have been brought by
the investigating officer. However, registration
of second FIR based upon same set of facts is
not permissible in the eye of law as per the
settled proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court time and again and therefore
applicant may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia further submits
that in fact there were long standing disputes
between the complainant and present applicant
and therefore applicant herein had registered
one FIR against the complainant on 02.12.2023. A
copy of the said FIR is placed along with the
memo of the petition. He further submits that
during the pendency of the present proceedings,
applicant has received one communication from
the same police station, wherein, based upon the
same set of materials, third party has filed an
application for initiation of criminal
proceedings against the complainant, wherein,
statement of the applicant is required to be
recorded by the investigating officer. He,
therefore, submits that considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
aforesaid factual aspects, applicant may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing
suitable terms and conditions.
7. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Yuvraj
Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent No.1 -
State has objected present application with
vehemence and submitted that name as well as
specific role of the applicant is clearly spelt
out from the body of the FIR as well as police
papers. He further submits that the entire
incident is recorded in CCTV camera and CCTV
footage and photographs were recovered by the IO
during the course of investigation. He further
submits that Panchnama to that effect is also
drawn, which clearly goes on to show that
applicant and other accused persons have beaten
the complainant on a particular day. He further
submits that at the time when the incident of
beating the complainant was occurred, one person
had also gone to the place of occurrence and he
had seen the entire incident through his bare
eyes and therefore he has been shown as an eye-
witness. His statement is also recorded,
wherein, he has disclosed the entire sequence of
events in a very graphical manner, whereby, the
involvement of the applicant and other accused
persons is clearly found out. He further submits
that not only that the complainant herein had
purchased two properties by paying handsome
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
amount to the owner of the properties and sale
deed of the said properties was not executed in
favour of the complainant as certain amount had
not been paid by the complainant to the original
owner. It is the specific case of the
complainant that he was beaten mercilessly by
all the accused persons and forced him to
execute the registered sale deed of the said
properties in the name of the present applicant.
Therefore, complainant had gone to the owner of
the properties along with the accused persons
and at that relevant point of time, under the
duress, threat and coercion on the part of the
applicant and other accused persons, he
instructed the owner to execute the sale deed in
favour of the applicant and said fact is clearly
found out from the statement of the owner of the
property that complainant was totally fainted
and under the coercion and duress he has
instructed him to execute the sale deed in
favour of the applicant and he has not received
a single penny from the applicant. Not only
that, the complainant and his father were
directed to sign in the said document as
witnesses. Thus, the documents collected by the
investigating officer during the course of
investigation clearly go on to show the active
involvement of the applicant in the commission
of crime. The applicant is also history-sheeter
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
and four offences are registered against him.
Therefore, from the aforesaid overall facts of
the present case, when the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime is clearly
spelt out, this is the fit case, wherein,
discretionary powers of anticipatory bail may
not be exercised in favour of the applicant.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing on
behalf of original complainant submits that
almost all the arguments have been canvassed by
learned APP and therefore she is adopting all
those arguments. She further submits that the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of T. T. Antony (supra) would not be
applicable in the facts of the present case,
since, at the relevant point of time, the
complainant was under the fear of the accused
persons as he was mercilessly beaten by the
applicant and other accused persons and threat
was administered by the applicant that if said
fact would be disclosed before anybody, in that
event, his entire family would be killed. She
further submits that it is settled proposition
of law that on the basis of one incident, if the
members of two rival groups have registered
cross complaints against each other, in that
event, independent investigation is required to
be carried out by the IO in both the FIRs. She,
therefore, submits that the ratio laid down by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision
would not be applicable in the instant case. She
submits that looking to the overall facts of the
present case and when the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime is clearly
spelt out, he may not be enlarged on bail.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties and perusing the investigation
papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court
to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
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 applicants 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 applicants to flee from
justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been
made with the object of injuring or humiliating
the applicants by having him so arrested. 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. I have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
considered the following aspects.
10. 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.
11. It is well settled that an application preferred
for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy
to be granted in exceptional cases. The
parameters and considerations governing the
grant of anticipatory bail have been explained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases.
At this stage, I would like to refer and rely
upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI
V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported
in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s
Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019
SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
"The legislative intent behind the
introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to
safeguard the individual's personal
liberty and to protect him from the
possibility of being humiliated and from
being subjected to unnecessary police
custody. However, the court must also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
keep in view that a criminal offence is
not just an offence against an individual
rather the larger societal interest is at
stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is
required to be established between the
two rights - safeguarding the personal
liberty of an individual and the societal
interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure
of the investigation to secure not only
the presence of the accused but several
other purposes. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may
provide information leading to discovery
of material facts and relevant
information. Grant of anticipatory bail
may hamper the investigation. It may
frustrate the investigating agency in
interrogating the accused and in
collecting the useful information and
also materials which might have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the accused knows that he
is protected by the order of the court.
Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly
in economic offences would definitely
hamper the effective investigation. Pre-
arrest bail is to strike a balance
between the individual's right to
personal freedom and the right of the
investigating agency to interrogate the
accused as to the material so far
collected and to collect more information
which may lead to recovery of relevant
information. In this view, it cannot be
said that refusal to grant anticipatory
bail would amount to denial of the rights
conferred upon the applicant under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438
CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has
to be exercised sparingly; more so, in
cases of economic offences. Economic
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
offences stand as a different class as
they affect the economic fabric of the
society. The privilege of the pre-arrest
bail should be granted only in
exceptional cases. The judicial
discretion conferred upon the court has
to be properly exercised after
application of mind as to the nature and
gravity of the accusation; possibility of
the applicant fleeing justice and other
factors to decide whether it is a fit
case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent
interferes in the sphere of investigation
of an offence and hence, the court must
be circumspect while exercising such
power for grant of anticipatory bail.
Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in
exceptional cases where the case alleged
is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory
bail is to be granted as a matter of rule
and it has to be granted only when the
court is convinced that exceptional
circumstances exist to resort to that
extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations
and stage of investigations, held
investigating agency must be given
sufficient freedom in process of
investigation. Appellant not entitled to
anticipatory bail as the same would
hamper the investigation".
12. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs.
State of Haryana and another reported in (2023)
8 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph
No.21, observed as under:-
"21. The relief of anticipatory bail is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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 becomes crucial to ensure
a just outcome."
13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
as this application has been preferred under the
provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail, I would like to refer the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in (2011) 1 SCC
694, more particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112,
which read as under :-
"14.It is clear from the Statement of
Objects and Reasons that the purpose of
incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C.
was to recognize the importance of personal
liberty and freedom in a free and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
democratic country. When we carefully
analyze this section, the wisdom of the
legislature becomes quite evident and clear
that the legislature was keen to ensure
respect for the personal liberty and also
pressed in service the age-old principle
that an individual is presumed to be
innocent till he is found guilty by the
court.
112.The following factors and parameters
can be taken into consideration while
dealing with the anticipatory bail: The
nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before arrest is
made; 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; The
possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice; The possibility of the accused's
likelihood to repeat similar or the other
offences. Whereas the accusation have been
made only with the object to injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him
or her. Impact of grant of anticipatory
bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people. The courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully. The court must also clearly
comprehend the exact role of the accused in
the case."
14. Now, coming back to the facts of the case,
it is the specific case of the complainant that
complainant has borrowed some money from the
applicant along with 15% interest and as he
could not make the repayment of the said amount,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
applicant and other accused persons have
abducted the complainant and beaten him
mercilessly and forced him to register the
residential properties of the ownership of the
complainant in the name of the applicant. The
applicant has also threatened the complainant
not to disclose the said fact to anybody. It is
the case of the applicant that for the same set
of facts, complainant has registered one FIR
against other accused persons before 12 days of
the registration of the FIR in question and at
that particular time he has not disclosed the
name as well as role of the applicant and
therefore the instant being the second and
subsequent FIR, as per the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. T.
Antony (supra), is not maintainable and
therefore applicant may be enlarged on
anticipatory bail. It is pertinent to note that
the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of T. T. Antony (supra) would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. I
have also gone through the contents of the FIR
as well as other materials relied on and
referred by the learned APP as well as learned
advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the original
complainant during the course of hearing of this
application which prima facie suggest
involvement of the applicant in the commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
of crime. Therefore, considering the facts of
the present case as also the fact that
investigation is still going on, the present
application deserves to be rejected.
15. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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
custodial interrogation is not required
or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a
ground to grant anticipatory bail."
16. Thus, while taking into consideration the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as
also ratio laid down in other decisions as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
stated above, 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 involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime.
17. 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 in exceptional cases.
18. Hence, the present application seeking
anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12035/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
19. 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
