Gujarat High Court
Shantibhai Mathurbhai Galdhariya vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 14/07/2025
Pronounced On : 22/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7359
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SHANTIBHAI MATHURBHAI GALDHARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
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.I-11198047241017 of 2024
registered with Shihor Police Station, Bhavnagar for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for
which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He
further submits that the applicant will keep himself available
during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from
justice. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya also submits that the
FIR came to be lodged on 16.12.2024 for the incident alleged to
have been taken place on 20.11.2024, and as such, there is a
gross delay of 26 days in registering the FIR. He further submits
that the present applicant has not been named in the FIR, and on
the basis of statement made by the co-accused, he has been
falsely implicated in the present offence. Moreover, looking to the
allegations made in the FIR, there is no specific role attributed to
the present applicant. He submits that there was a love affair
between the main accused and the victim girl, and therefore, one
fine day, they ran away from their respective houses, and then
tried to make a live-in relationship agreement, however, as the
victim girl was minor, the main accused got the Adhar Card of the
victim girl edited showing her to be a major and then produced it
before the present applicant, who is an advocate, for preparation
of the contract for live-in relationship, and on the basis of the said
Adhar Card, the present applicant prepared the said agreement
and also put his signature as a witness. Assuming for the sake of
argument, without admitting it, the role attributed to the present
applicant is that on the basis of forged Adhar Card, the present
applicant prepared and placed his signature as a witness in the
live-in relationship agreement, and except this, there is no other
allegation against the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr.
Mangukiya further submits that as per the affidavit filed by the
investigating officer, there is one past antecedent of similar
nature against the present applicant, however, it is to be noted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
that in the said case, the present applicant has already been
enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial court. Moreover, the
three other co-accused persons, having attributed with the role of
notarizing the agreement and editing the Adhar Card of the
victim girl, have already been enlarged on regular bail by the trial
court. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide
by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing the
applicant on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate, therefore,
submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be
granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submits that
the specific role of the applicant is clearly spelt out from the
materials on record. He submits that initially the FIR came to be
lodged against the main accused, however, during the course of
investigation, the name and specific role of the present applicant
has come on surface. He also submits that during the course of
investigation, it has come on record that the age of the victim girl
was 14 years, and at the instance of the present applicant, the
main accused had prepared/created forged Adhar Card of the
victim girl, wherein she has been shown as major, and on the
strength of the forged Adhar Card, the present applicant
prepared an agreement of live-in relationship, knowing fully well
that the girl was actually minor. Learned APP further submits
that from the statement of the co-accused recorded during the
course of investigation, it appears that at the instance of the
present applicant, he went to a particular place and got the
Adhar Card of the girl edited, and then on the basis of the same,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
got the agreement executed with the present applicant. Not only
that, at the time of getting the said agreement notarized, the
signatures of two witnesses were required, and it was the present
applicant who gave the names two persons to the main accused
and then the main accused made false signatures of those two
persons before the notary, who were at all not in existence. He
submits that except the statement of the co-accused, other
evidences have also been collected by the investigating officer,
establishing nexus between the present applicant and the
commission of the crime. Therefore, considering the above stated
aspects, at this stage, the Hon'le Court may not exercise
discretion in favour of the applicant.
5. 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 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 merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused,
should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
(a) That, the present applicant is an advocate by
profession, and the only allegation against him is that
he prepared an agreement to live-in relationship of
the main accused and the victim girl, and except the
same, no other allegations are there against the
present applicant;
(b) That, there seems to be a love affair between the
main accused and the victim girl, and therefore, they
ran away from their respective houses, and went to
the present applicant to get the agreement executed,
and the present applicant, being an advocate, on the
basis of the documents placed before him, only did
his work, and there is no other allegation of forgery or
molestation are there against the present applicant;
(c) That, the present applicant has not been named in the
FIR, and on the basis of the statement made by the
co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused;
(d) That, the other co-accused persons, who can be said
to have been attributed with more graver role than
that of the present applicant, have already been
released on regular bail by the trial court;
(e) Moreover, there is a delay of almost 26 days in
registering the FIR;
(f) That the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in
the investigation;
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 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 & Ors. 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, I am inclined
to allow the present application.
7. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-11198047241017 of 2024
registered with Shihor Police Station, Bhavnagar, the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on the following conditions that applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 25.07.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and
the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment
or inconvenience is caused to the applicants;
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change her/his residence till
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7359/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) 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;
(g) an 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 person who seeks and is granted pre-
arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) 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.-
8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
