Gujarat High Court
Hiteshbhai Pravinchandra Thakar vs State Of Gujarat on 4 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1698 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
HITESHBHAI PRAVINCHANDRA THAKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MONARCH K PANDYA(11437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANIL H RATHOD(9691) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MANAN MAHETA, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 04/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1-State
and learned advocate Mr.Anil H. Rathod waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2-original
complainant.
2. The present successive application is filed under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11208055230125
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
of 2023 registered with the D.C.B. Police Station, Rajkot of the
offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 406,
420, 419 and 170 of the Indian Penal Code.
Factual Matrix
3. The broad facts and events as discernible from the record
may be stated as under:
3.1 The first information report came to be filed by the first
informant, namely, Alpeshbhai Bavanjibhai on 14.04.2023 for
the incident alleged to have been taken place during the
period between 01.01.2019 and 28.02.2023 arraigning the
present applicant as the sole accused. It is alleged in the
complaint that the applicant herein first met the brother of the
complainant, namely, Vijaybhai and had posed himself as the
Deputy Director, I.B., Western Division. Thereafter, the
applicant started maintaining good and cordial relations with
the family members of the complainant. It is alleged in the
complaint that then the applicant-accused gave his personal
number to the brother of the complainant and told him that if
there is any work in which the applicant-accused could lend a
hand, the complainant and his family must inform him for
seeking his help. In this manner, the applicant-accused
initially convinced the complainant and his family that he was
authorized by the Government to deal with allotment of land in
capacity of previous Deputy Collector of Botad District and
having direct access to the Ministry and State Department.
3.2 It is further alleged in the complaint that with the same
modus operandi, the accused persons had lured the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
complainant and his family in obtaining a Defense Contract for
supply of Copper from their Firm called Super Star wiring
Industry. The complainant and his family was informed that
in order to obtain the contract, they must pay certain amount
towards Security Deposit and some settlement amounts which
will be refundable. It is also alleged in the complaint that the
applicant herein had threatened the complainant and his
family with reference to several criminal cases registered
against their partner in Courts of Badmer, Gujarat, and in order
to be not arrested, certain amount will have to be paid for Bail
Bond. It is further alleged in the complaint that in order to
obtain the aforesaid amount, the accused person had created
several forged and false documents and on the basis of the
said forged and false documents, he had obtained huge
amount of money to the tune of Rs.1,22,92,618/- from the
complainant and his family members. In the backdrop of the
aforesaid facts, the present complaint has been filed.
CONTENTIONS
4. Learned advocate Mr. Monarch Pandya appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was
arrested on 15.04.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned
advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the applicant has also
submitted that the investigation has already been completed
and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate Mr.
Pandya has further submitted that the entire case of the
prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence, i.e, the
creation of false and fabricated document. However, the said
document has already been forwarded to the FSL, and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
report of the FSL is still awaiting and there is no handwriting
expert's report is available on record, and in absence of such
important material, inference cannot be drawn against the
applicant accused that he has actually forged the document.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has also submitted that this is a
third round of litigation and earlier two applications came to be
withdrawn with a liberty to file fresh application after receiving
the report of the FSL, however, as of now, the report of the
FSL has not been received, and in the absence of the report of
the FSL, even the trial court is not in a position to conduct the
trial against the present applicant and the trial is delaying
without there being any fault on the part of the applicant-
accused, and there are in all 77 witnesses have been cited
by the prosecution to be examined, which is likely to take
considerable long period of time to conclude the trial, and
keeping the applicant-accused behind the bar for such an
indefinite period would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has further submitted that the
entire proceedings has been initiated against the applicant-
accused only on the basis of the signature of the applicant on
the purportedly false and forged documents.. Even if there is a
handwriting expert's opinion, the same is only a relevant piece
of evidence and not a conclusive evidence. Here in the case on
hand, no handwriting expert's opinion has been elicited.
Moreover, all the offences are exclusively triable by the court
of Magistrate. Furthermore, there is a delay of one and a half
month in registering the FIR. To buttress his submissions,
learned advocate Mr. Pandya has relied upon the following
decisions;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
i) In the case of Mukesh Salam vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.3655 of 2024;
ii) In the case of Sri Naveen Kumar vs. State of Karnataka,
Criminal Petition No.7019 of 2020;
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned
advocate Mr. Pandya prays that there being merit in his
application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be
enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently
opposed by learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta appearing for the
respondent-State. Learned APP Mr. Maheta has submitted that
the role of the present applicant-accused is clearly established
from the police papers. Learned APP has further submitted that
a systematic fraud has been committed by the applicant-
accused with an intention to dupe the innocent gullible people.
Learned APP Mr. Maheta has submitted that this is a third
round of litigation and the earlier two applications filed by the
applicant-accused was permitted to be withdrawn with a
liberty to file fresh application after receiving the report of the
FSL, which has yet not been received, and without waiting for
the report of the FSL to come, the applicant-accused has filed
the present application, and thereby has disobeyed the order
passed by this Court and has misused the liberty granted by
this Court. There is no change of circumstance or the fresh
ground for filing the present application. Learned APP Mr.
Maheta has further submitted that charges have already been
framed and trial has also been commenced and number of
witnesses have been examined. The charges levelled against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
the applicant-accused are serious in nature. The applicant-
accused has impersonated himself as the officer duly
authorized by the Government and has also created false and
fabricated orders of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court
and also prepared documents in the name of Government
authorities and forwarded those set of documents to the
complainant through WhatsApp, a copies of which documents
have been collected and forwarded to the FSL for the purpose
of examination, and the FSL report has yet not been received,
and therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant-
accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this
Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-
accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Anil H. Rathod appearing for the
original complainant has adopted all the arguments canvassed
by learned APP and has submitted that looking to the nature of
the offence being committed by the applicant-accused, he may
not be enlarged on bail.
CONCLUSION
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at
length and perused the record.
9. Over a period of time, it is very common to come across
cases where a person gains wrongful benefit by the means of
forgery. Such forgery may be of many kinds such as forgery of
signatures, documents, electronic records, etc. It is a known
fact that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 through its provisions, acts
like armour when it comes to protecting the citizens of India
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
from various offences. This includes the offence of forgery as
well. Forgery means the creation, addition or alteration of any
writing, record, instrument, stamp, register, deed, etc. in a
false manner to the prejudice of another individual's right. It is
an act to commit fraud that is fueled by the intention of deceit.
In a case of forgery, the instrument in question is altered in
such a manner that if it is passed off as genuine then it shall
possess legal value or establish legal liability.
10. In the instant case, the first information report has been
registered under sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
relevant provisions are as under:-
10.1 Section 465 reads as under:
"465. Punishment for forgery.--Whoever commits forgery
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
10.2 Section 467 is as under:
"467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--Whoever
forges a document which purports to be a valuable
security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which
purports to give authority to any person to make or
transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal,
interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any
money, movable property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or
valuable security, Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023 shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
10.3 Section 468 reads thus;
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.-- Whoever
commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
10.4 Section 471 is as follows;
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record.--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as
genuine any document or electronic record which he
knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document
or electronic record, shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had forged such document or electronic
record." 5.5 Now, so far as the offence under Section
420 of the IPC is concerned, "whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person,..............." shall be
said to have committed the offence of cheating and shall
be punished. Cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC,
which reads as under:-
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section."
11. The main allegation in the complaint was that the
applicant-accused impersonated himself as an officer duly
authorized by the Government and after taking into confidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
the complainant and the witnesses by giving false promises
and assurances of providing the government waste lands as
also the relief from the revenue department, and then to book
the complainant and the witnesses in a false cases, the
applicant-accused has got a very huge amount from them,
and thereby duped and cheated them. The aforesaid act has
been done by the applicant-accused by administering threats
to the complainant under the guise of he being an I.A.S.
Officer. Looking to the allegations made against the accused,
he has created forged and fabricated letters and orders of
various Government authorities like Revenue Bond, Central
Government, Revenue Department, Addl. District Collector,
District Collector, Section Officer etc., and forwarded it to the
complainant through WhatsApp by making a false signatures
of the concerned department on it. It also appears from the
record that similar kind of offences have also been registered
against the applicant-accused at Amreli Rural Police Station
and Sinhor Police Station at Bhavnagar. Thus, the applicant-
accused seems to be habitual in committing such kind of
offences. Not only that, it is also brought on record that the
applicant-accused had been released on temporary bail
earlier, however, he did not surrender in time and remained
absconding for about 53 days, and as such, looking to the
said conduct of the applicant-accused, coupled with the serious
allegations levelled against him of impersonating himself as
the top level government official as also of creating false and
fabricated government documents by forging the signatures of
the officers of the concerned department as also creating the
bogus orders of the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
Court, the applicant-accused should not be released on bail at
this stage, when the report of the F.S.L is awaiting.
12. Now, so far as the offence under Section 465 is
concerned. As per Section 465, "whoever commits forgery
shall be punished for the offence under Section 465". Forgery
is defined under Section 463, which reads as under:-
"463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or
false electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the
public or to any person, or to support any claim or title,
or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter
into any express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits
forgery."
13. Therefore, as per Section 463, "whoever makes any false
documents, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the
public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to
cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or
that fraud may be committed", he is said to have committed
the offence of forgery. Making a false document is defined
under Section 464 IPC. Therefore, for the offence of forgery,
there must be making of a false document with intent to cause
damage or injury to the public or to any person. Therefore,
making the false documents is sine qua non. In the present
case, prima facie, it appears that the allegations levelled
against the applicant-accused are very serious in nature that
he has created a false and fabricated documents of various
government authorities and the orders of the courts. The
mystery as to whether the applicant-accused has made false
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
and fabricated documents and made forged signatures of the
concerned officers is still unraveled which may come on
surface during the course of full-fledged trial and recording of
evidence. Therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to
entertain the present application as the entire case hinges
upon the documentary evidence and, therefore, this Court has
to keep in mind the aspect of tampering and hampering with
the prosecution witnesses and the evidence.
14. Now, so far as the offences under Sections 467 and 468
IPC are concerned, I am of the prima facie view that no case is
made out for grant of bail looking to the ingredients of
Sections 467 and 468 of IPC coupled with the allegations made
in the FIR. Section 467 is with respect to forgery of valuable
security, will etc. Section 468 relates to forgery for the
purposes of cheating. Section 471 will be applicable in case of
using as genuine a forged document.
15. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging
documents in order to dupe the complainant worth crores of
rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely
important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is
equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the
offence and determine if there is a need for custodial
interrogation.
16. In view of what has observed herein above, I am not
inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant-
accused. Consequently, the present application fails and is
hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
