Desai Chirag Devendrabhai vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 729 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Desai Chirag Devendrabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/CR.A/1440/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1440 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                                  DESAI CHIRAG DEVENDRABHAI
                                                             Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       PARAS K SUKHWANI(8284) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR. NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                            Date : 09/07/2025

                                                                 ORAL ORDER

1. 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. 11191037250626 of 2025 registered with Odhav Police Station, Dist: Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhari appears on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni for the appellant submits that as per the case of the prosecution the so-called incident occurred during the period between 22.02.2024 to 10.04.2025 whereas the FIR is registered on 10.04.2025. He further submits that FIR is registered against total of 5 persons wherein the name of the applicant is mentioned at serial no.1. He submits that, in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

fact, criminal colour is given to the civil disputes. The complainant has decided to purchase one property through the present applicant. The present applicant is working as a broker in that particular area. Subsequently, original owner has decided not to sale the property, and therefore, sale deed could not have been executed, and therefore, the applicant herein had already repaid amount of Rs.8,90,000/-. He further submits that the applicant is ready and willing to repay the rest of amount to the complainant. The applicant is innocent and directly or indirectly not connected with the commission of crime. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the documentary evidences and almost all documents have been collected by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation. Considering the same, the applicant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

3. Learned APP Mr. Soni appears for the respondent State has opposed the present bail application with vehemence and submits that by simply making glance upon the charge of accusations levelled against the applicant in the body of the FIR clearly goes on to show that the applicant is the main accused person and with a sole intent to dupe the complainant he had orchestrated a well designed plan. It is the specific case of the complainant that as soon as the applicant has come to know about the fact that complainant wants to purchase a house in that particular society he has organized a well- designed sinister plan, and a part of his plan, one person

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

has been impersonated namely Rajendra Panchal and produced before the complainant, and he had stated that he is the owner of the said property. Thereafter, a deed of agreement to sale without possession of the property had been executed between them in the presence of the present applicant, and at that relevant point of time, half payment had already been paid i.e. Rs.40,00,000/-, and thereafter after a lapse of 8-10 days the applicant herein had demanded amount from the complainant and the said amount had been paid through cash as well as cheque. The applicant herein had given assurance to the complainant that he will see to it that as early as possible sale deed would be executed between the parties, but then after time and again the complainant and his relatives had paid visit to the office of the applicant, but under one or other pretext, the applicant herein had delayed the proceedings of registration of sale deed. Thereafter, one fine day, he had retracted from his version specifically stating that complainant belongs to particular community (SC/ST), therefore, sale deed would not have been executed and he would repay the said amount. Thereafter, on number of occasions, the complainant had paid visit to the office of the applicant, but he had not paid any single penny, and thereafter, he had gone into incommunicado. Thereafter, the complainant has come to know that there are other persons who are duped by the applicant, and they had also registered FIR against him. That is why, the present FIR has been registered. Learned APP further submits

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

that, in fact, the applicant herein has the antecedents and number of offences have been registered against him. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein involvement of the applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of the compilation of the police papers. Considering the totality of the facts of the matter, discretionary power of the anticipatory bail may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.

4. I have heard and considered the arguments canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the very inception of the commission of crime, the act, conduct, and behavior of the applicant clearly go onto show that there was bad intention to deceive the complainant, and as a part of his designed program, he had introduced accused no.3 as an owner of the property by impersonating him as Rajendra Panchal, and at that relevant point of time he had also shown the documents in the name of Rajendra Panchal, and by doing so he had won the confidence of the complainant and also gave assurance that if the amount would be paid, in that event, the said property would be transferred in his name by executing registered sale deed. It is found out from the record that a deed of agreement to sale without possession of the property had been executed between them in the presence of the present applicant, and at that relevant point of time, half payment had already been paid i.e. Rs.40,00,000/-, and thereafter after a lapse of 8-10 days the applicant herein had demanded amount from the complainant and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

said amount had been paid through cash as well as cheque. It further transpires that inspite of assurance given by the applicant herein to the complainant to execute the sale deed with regard to the said property the applicant later on had retracted from his version specifically stating that complainant belongs to particular community (SC/ST), therefore, sale deed would not have been executed. It further transpires from the record that upon demand from the complainant to get her money back from the applicant, the applicant herein had repaid amount of Rs.8,90,000/-, however, the remaining amount had not been repaid by the present applicant to the complainant, and after number of attempts by the complainant to recover her money from the applicant, he went incommunicado. It further transpires that there are antecedents of the present applicant wherein other persons are also duped by the applicant and FIR with regard to that are also registered against him. The above-stated sequence of events of incidents crystallized the position that with a sole intent to dupe the complainant, present applicant had organized the sinister design and plan and acted in particular manner. The material collected by the investigating officer clearly goes onto show that the applicant is actively involved in commission of crime, and therefore, this Hon'ble court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary power of anticipatory bail.

5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as this application has been preferred under the provisions of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

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."

6. 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 was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

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."

7. 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 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 the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime.

8. It is required to be noted at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judicial pronouncements have observed that a court may reject an anticipatory bail application when custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for a thorough investigation, even if the applicant argues that such interrogation isn't required.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1440/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025

undefined

Further, while custodial interrogation can be a factor in denying anticipatory bail, it is not the sole determinant, and courts will also consider other factors related to the severity of the offense and the need for a comprehensive investigation.

9. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, as applicant is actively involved in the offence, I have absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order of anticipatory bail before he is interrogated by the Police, in that event, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing the serious offence and applicant may again indulge in such type of criminal activities. Therefore, I do 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.

10. Hence, the present application seeking for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

11. Needless to say that observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of these pre- arrest bail applications, and shall not influence any other proceedings arise from impugned FIR.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) AMIT ITALIAN