Gujarat High Court
Rahul Chander Jashnani vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 26/06/2025
Pronounced On : 02/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20694 of 2024
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
RAHUL CHANDER JASHNANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA APP 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.
11210045231052/2023 registered with Pandesara
Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Asthavadi appearing for the
applicant has referred to the FIR and submitted
that there is gross delay in registration of the
FIR as the so-called incident has occurred during
the period between 13.02.2021 to 09.03.2023, for
which, FIR has been lodged on 09.03.2023, which
suggests false implication of the applicant
herein. He submitted that it is the specific case
of the complainant that the present applicant had
entered into business transaction with the
complainant herein since 2013 and pursuant
thereto, the present applicant has purchased goods
total worth of Rs.9,82,16,976/-, out of which,
Rs.2,98,87,125/- has already been paid and goods
worth of Rs.2,47,08,641/- have been returned and
thus, total outstanding is of Rs.4,36,20,997/-
from the applicant herein. He referring the said
allegations and accusation leveled against the
applicant submitted that narration of the facts in
the body of the FIR itself crystallize the
position that there was absolute commercial
transaction took place between the complainant and
the applicant, for which, criminal colour is given
to the civil dispute by registering the aforesaid
FIR, which itself suggests that an arm twisting
method has been adopted by the complainant to
recover the amount of business transaction. He
submitted that in fact, the complainant and the
applicant both had entered into Memorandum of
Understanding at the time of entering into
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
business transaction and as per the said MoU,
there is specific clause mentioned therein with
regard to Arbitration in case of any dispute
arises between the parties, however instead of
availing said remedy, straightway aforesaid FIR
has been lodged. He submitted that in the year
2018, the complainant herein had initiated
proceedings under the provision of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, however subsequently,
he remained silent and did not take any further
action and, thereafter all of sudden, the
aforesaid FIR has been lodged. He submitted that
for the purpose of recovery of the said amount, as
per the clause mentioned in the MoU, suit can be
preferred for the recovery of the amount within a
period of three years before the competent court,
however here in the present case, the complainant
has failed to institute the said suit within time
framed schedule and having failed in availing
appropriate remedy, the present FIR, at belated
stage, has been filed in the year 2023 with a sole
intent to recover the amount from the applicant.
He submitted that considering the above facts and
considering the nature of allegations, custodial
interrogation of the applicant at this stage is
not necessary and he will keep himself available
during the course of investigation, trial also and
will not flee from justice. He, under the
instructions, further submitted that the applicant
is ready and willing to abide by all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
conditions including imposition of conditions
while releasing the applicant on anticipatory
bail. At this stage, he has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2024) 10 SCC
690 and submitted that considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions, the applicant is entitled for
anticipatory bail. It is, therefore urged that the
applicant may be granted anticipatory bail
imposing suitable terms and conditions.
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. It is submitted that
entire sequence of incidents of events narrated by
the complainant clearly goes on to show the
involvement of the applicant in the commission of
crime and as the prima face case is made out, the
present application may not be entertained.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Bharda appearing for the
original complainant has strongly objected the
present application and submitted that a
systematic plan has been orchestrated by the
applicant with a sole intent to defraud the
complainant. He submitted that in fact, the
applicant herein came in contact with the
complainant as both are involved in same business
and in connection with the same, the applicant had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
purchased goods from the complainant and as per
the oral terms, within ten days, the applicant
used to pay the amount of the goods, however after
winning confidence of the complainant, the
applicant herein had entered into MoU and,
thereafter, regular business had been continued
between them and at that time, the applicant used
to pay regular payment, however subsequently, he
stopped making payment to the complainant and
started making excuses and when the complainant
had gone to the office of the applicant, at that
relevant point of time, the applicant had stated
that due to Corona, his business is affected, as a
result of which, he could not be able to repay the
amount of the goods within time framed schedule.
He further submitted that on the request being
made by the applicant, the complainant continued
to supply goods thereafter also and the said fact
is clearly fortified from the ledger account of
the complainant produced along with the reply
filed by the complainant. He further submitted
that however after some time, the applicant had
shut down his office and gone into incommunicado
and subsequently, the complainant had come to know
that he is out of India i.e. at Dubai since last
more than two years. He, therefore, submitted that
in fact, in technical sense, the present
application is not maintainable as the applicant
is stationed at Dubai, which is outside the
jurisdiction of India, where he is enjoying
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
luxurious life and the said fact is also fortified
from the fact that he has affirmed the present
application before the Consulate General of India,
Dubai.
6. Learned advocate, referring to the documents,
submitted that in fact, the validity of the
passport of the applicant has already expired,
therefore, he had applied for renewal of his
passport before the Embassy of India (Dubai) and
at the time of submission of the application,
detail with regard to any criminal case is
required to be mentioned, which the present
applicant has suppressed. He submitted that on
account of non-availability of the applicant, the
concerned Investigating Officer has submitted an
application before the competent court for
issuance of arrant under Section 70 of the CrPC.
Not only that, thereafter lookout notice was also
issued by the court concerned, copies of such
documents are placed on record. He, therefore,
submitted that from the above facts, it is clear
that at the time of renewal of the passport,
absolute incorrect facts have been disclosed by
the applicant before the Embassy of India,
therefore, he has committed another offence,
therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any
relief as claimed by him.
7. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, at the
time of making submission of the applicant, very
conveniently the applicant has argued before this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Court that the period of limitation has
expired but in fact, the complainant herein has
already initiated proceedings before the Hon'ble
NCLT, wherein notice has been issued and the said
proceeding is still pending and the said fact is
also mentioned by the complainant in the affidavit
filed by him. He further submitted that in fact,
at the time of institution of the proceedings
before the Hon'ble NCLT, the complainant has come
to know that number of persons have been duped by
the present applicant and those persons have
initiated the proceedings under the Insolvency and
Bankrupt Act, therefore, the applicant is not
entitled for any relief as claimed by him.
8. Learned advocate, at this stage, has drawn
attention of this Hon'ble Court on various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
submitted that in criminal offences, if the
proceeding for the proclaimed offender is
initiated and the person concerned is declared as
absconder accused avoids his arrest, in that
event, the Court must also consider the factum of
issuance of non-bailable and the initiation of
proceedings of proclaimed offender seriously and
may not entertain the application. He further
submitted that here in the present case also, as
stated above, warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC
has already been issued and lookout notice has
also been issued against him. It is, therefore
urged that considering the above facts as also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of anticipatory bail,
the present application may not be entertained.
9. In rejoinder, learned advocate, Mr. Asthavadi
submitted that another offence has been registered
against the applicant at Bengalore, where the
applicant has already been enlarged on
anticipatory bail and at the time of submission of
renewal application of passport before the
competent authority, the said fact was already
disclosed and by filing further affidavit, the
applicant has confirmed about the same.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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.
(a) for the incident during the period between
13.02.2021 to 09.03.2023, FIR has been lodged
on 09.03.2023 and thus, there is gross delay;
(b) prima facie it seems that there are business
transactions between the applicant and the
original complainant during the period
between 13.02.2021 to 09.03.2023 and out of
total amount of the goods supplied i.e.
Rs.9,82,16,976/-, Rs.2,98,87,125/- has
already been paid and goods worth of
Rs.2,47,08,641/- have been returned and there
were outstanding of Rs.4,36,20,997/- and
thus, it was a business transaction between
the applicant and the complainant;
(c) in the year 2018, the complainant herein had
initiated proceedings under the provision of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
however subsequently, he remained silent and
did not take any further action and,
thereafter all of sudden, the aforesaid FIR
has been lodged;
(d) there is also delay in institution of the
suit by the complainant, which was also
subsequently dismissed by the competent civil
court;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(e) as per MoU entered into between the applicant
and the complainant, there is specific clause
mentioned therein with regard to the
"Arbitration", however instead of availing
such remedy, the present FIR has been filed;
(f) I have considered the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Delhi Race Club
(1940) Ltd. (supra) upon which reliance has
been placed by learned advocate for the
applicant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has considered the difference between
'cheating' and 'criminal breach of trust',
which are often used interchangeably and in
the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has clarified that 'cheating' and 'criminal
breach of trust' are antithetical to each
other and cannot co-exist.
(g) considering the facts of the case, as pointed
out, custodial interrogation of the applicant
is not required.
11. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid
down by 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
to allow the present application.
12. 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. 11210045231052/2023 registered with
Pandesara Police Station, Surat, the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 10.07.2025 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 applicant;
(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 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20694/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(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.-
13. 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.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
