Gujarat High Court
Chandralekha Ramesh Mayekar vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 11/07/2025
Pronounced On : 17/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
11837 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHANDRALEKHA RAMESH MAYEKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, 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.11210015230230 of 2023 registered with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
DCB Police Station, Surat City for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the
applicant, learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for
respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.
Apurva Kapadia for original complainant.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the
applicant submits that FIR is registered on
22.11.2023 against total three persons, wherein,
name of the applicant is shown at serial No.3.
The accused No.2 is the husband of the present
applicant. He further submits that in fact
complainant had assigned the work to the accused
No.1 and accused No.2 introduced accused No.1
with the complainant and thereafter they entered
into the transaction and as a part of the
transaction, total amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/-
has been paid by the complainant to the accused
No.1. As the accused No.1 could not be able to
fulfill the work entrusted to him, the said
amount was demanded back, out of which, Rs.30
lakh have been repaid by the accused No.1 to the
complainant. So far as rest amount of
Rs.1,15,00,0000/- is concerned, accused No.1 had
handed over three cheques to the complainant.
However, the said cheques were dishonoured and
therefore FIR has been registered. Learned
advocate Mr. Meena further submits that in fact
before handing over the cheques, accused No.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
had executed one notarized document, whereby,
accused No.1 had given written assurance to the
complainant, specifically stating that entire
amount has been received by him and it is his
responsibility to repay the said amount within a
period of 30 days. In the said document,
reference of three cheques, which were
dishonoured, is also made. He further submits
that the accused No.2 had also filed an
affidavit cum undertaking specifically stating
that the amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- is being
paid to the accused No.1 through the accused
No.2 and therefore it is his moral and legal
responsibility to return back the aforesaid
amount to the original complainant. The said
documents are placed on record, which clearly
goes on to show that an amount of
Rs.1,45,00,000/- has been paid by the
complainant to accused No.1 through accused
No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Meena further submits
that it is also an admitted position of fact
that the said amount was paid to the accused
No.1 in the year 2022 and the aforesaid
documents were executed in the year 2023 and
thereafter cheques issued by accused No.1 were
dishonoured on 26.09.2023 with an endorsement
'fund insufficient' and therefore FIR has been
registered on 22.11.2023. Learned advocate Mr.
Meena further submits that in fact accused No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
is the husband of the applicant and at the time
of his arrest, applicant was very much available
and she went along with him at the Police
Station, however, at that relevant point of
time, she was not arrested. He further submits
that applicant is permanent resident of the
address shown in the cause title of the present
application and she is residing there since last
two years and a certificate to that effect is
also issued by the society. Thus, though the FIR
is registered on 26.11.2023, till date,
applicant has not been arrested. He further
submits that solely on the count that cheques
issued by the accused No.1 in favour of the
complainant had been dishonoured and with a sole
intent to exert pressure upon the accused No.2
and present applicant, complainant has
registered the FIR by arraigning them. He
further submits that the office of the
complainant is situated at Bombay, the accused
persons are resident of Bombay and the
transactions were also taken place at Bombay, in
spite of that, the FIR is registered at Gujarat,
which clearly goes on to show that as an arm
twisting tactic, the applicant and accused No.2
have been arraigned in a criminal prosecution
with a sole intent to harass them. He further
submits that considering the aforesaid overall
facts and circumstances of the present case, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
applicant being a lady accused, may be enlarged
on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms
and conditions.
5. Present application is strongly opposed by
learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma. Learned APP Mr.
Sharma has submitted that in fact at the time of
opposing the anticipatory bail application
preferred by the applicant before the learned
Trial Court, the investigating officer has filed
a detailed affidavit and if the contents of the
said affidavit are to be seen, in that event, it
would have been found out that on number of
occasions, Gujarat police had gone to the house
of the applicant but they could not get success
in their attempt to catch the applicant. Even
the statements of her husband and father-in-law
were also recorded, wherein, they have very
categorically stated that she was not present in
the house at that juncture. Therefore, applicant
was very much aware about the fact that since
inception her name was there in the FIR. In
spite of that, she has evaded her arrest at the
hands of the investigating agency. He further
submits that during the course of investigation,
the investigating officer has collected one
document in the form of a receipt purportedly
signed by the present applicant which clearly
goes on to show that applicant has received an
amount of Rs.25 lakh from the complainant. Thus,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
involvement of the present applicant in the
commission of crime is clearly found out from
the police papers. Hence, her bail application
may not be entertained.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Apurva Kapadia appearing
for the original complainant has objected
present application with vehemence and submitted
that involvement of the present applicant in the
commission of crime is clearly found out from
the very inception of commission of crime. He
further submits that very serious charges were
levelled against all the three accused persons.
In fact during the course of investigation,
names of other co-accused have also come on
surface and police had tried to catch them up
but could not be succeeded and therefore at the
time of submission of charge-sheet against the
co-accused persons, those accused were shown as
absconder. He further submits that so far as
accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they were
apprehended and subsequently charge-sheeted. He
submits that it is the specific case of the
complainant that complainant is engaged in the
business of redevelopment of old residential
societies/buildings and for the purpose of
redevelopment of one such society, he was in
search of certain rented premises for the
residents of the said society. The accused No.2
is one of the residents of the said society and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
he introduced accused No.1 with the complainant
under the pretext that accused No.1 is
influential person and he knows certain officers
of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Authority (MHADA) and he will arrange the rented
premises for the use of the complainant and for
such work, he would charge Rs. Rs.1,45,00,000/-.
Accordingly, at some intervals, complainant has
paid the said amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- to the
accused No.1 through accused Nos. 2 and 3. He
further submits that on 20.07.2022, the
complainant had paid Rs.20,00,000/- cash to the
accused No.2. Thereafter, on 28.07.2022, another
cash payment of Rs.50 lakh was made by the
complainant to the accused No.2. So far as the
role of the present applicant is concerned, it
is the specific case of the complainant that he
has paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 10.08.2022 to the
present applicant and applicant has also issued
receipt of such amount to the complainant.
Thereafter, cash amount of Rs.50 lakh was also
paid to the accused No.2 on 24.08.2022. He
further submits that the accused Nos. 2 and
applicant had also issued receipt of the
aforesaid payment made by the complainant.
Therefore, the involvement of the present
applicant in the commission of crime is found
out from the inception. He further submits that
accused persons had given total 84 allotment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
letters of different properties alleged to have
been issued by the competent authority against
which complainant had also given four Demand
Drafts to the accused persons. He further
submits that the time limit of the said DD was
expired and therefore complainant has made
inquiry about the same and thereafter he visited
the properties for which allotment letters were
given to the complainant and at that relevant
point of time it has come to the notice of the
complainant that the said properties were given
to third party and they were residing in the
said properties. He submits that at that
relevant point of time, complainant came to know
that the allotment letters issued by the accused
persons were forged and bogus one. He further
submits that bogus stamp and signature of the
concerned authority were made on the 84
allotment letters. Thus, when the complainant
has paid Rs.25 lakh cash to the applicant and
receipt to that effect is also issued by the
applicant, her active involvement in the
commission of crime is clearly found out. Thus,
all the accused persons have, in connivance with
each other, cheated the complainant by forging
fake allotment letters of the premises where
third parties were already residing. Thus,
considering the aforesaid overall facts of the
present case and the gravity of the offence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
7. 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 considered the following aspects.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
9. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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 appellant/
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 offences stand as a different class as
they affect the economic fabric of the society.
The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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".
10. 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 aimed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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."
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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 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."
12. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
the specific case of the complainant that
complainant is engaged in the business of
redevelopment of old residential societies and
for the purpose of redevelopment of one such
society, he was in search of certain rented
premises for the residents of the said society.
The accused No.2 is one of the residents of the
said society and he introduced accused No.1 with
the complainant under the pretext that accused
No.1 is influential person and he knows certain
officers of Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority (MHADA) and he will
arrange the rented premises for the use of the
complainant and for such work, he would charge
Rs.1,45,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner
entrusted the said work to the accused No.1 and
at some intervals paid the said amount of
and present applicant. It is the case of the
applicant that the said amount is given to the
accused No.1 and the said fact is fortified from
the notarized document executed by accused No.1
in favour of the complainant, wherein, he has
specifically stated that he has received the
amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and he is responsible
to repay the outstanding amount of
Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the complainant and
reference of three cheques issued by the accused
No.1 in favour of complainant is also made in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
the said document and FIR is filed after the
aforesaid cheques were dishonoured. Thus,
applicant has not received any monetary benefit
from the said transaction and therefore she may
be enlarged on bail. However, it is the specific
case of the complainant that he has paid
Rs.25,00,000/- on 10.08.2022 to the present
applicant and applicant has also issued receipt
to the complainant. It is also found out from
the record that during the course of
investigation, investigating officer has also
collected the said receipt issued by the
applicant. It is also found out from the record
that accused had given allotment letters of 84
properties alleged to have been issued by the
competent authority and complainant had also
given four Demand Drafts to the accused persons.
I have also gone through the contents of the
FIR, wherein, it is the specific case of the
complainant that as the time limit of the said
DD was expired, complainant has made inquiry and
upon paying visit to the properties for which
allotment letters were given by the accused
persons, it has come to the notice of the
complainant that the said properties were
already given to third party and they were
residing in the said properties and at that
relevant point of time, complainant has come to
know that the allotment letters given by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
accused persons alleged to have been issued by
the concerned authority were forged and bogus
one, whereupon, fake signatures and stamp of the
authority concerned were affixed. Thus, in the
prima facie opinion of this Court, all the
accused persons have, in connivance with each
other, cheated the complainant by forging the
documents. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
in the prima facie opinion of this Court,
involvement of the applicant in the commission
of crime is clearly spelt out from the materials
placed on record. Therefore, considering the
facts of the present case as also the fact that
investigation is at a crucial stage and
considering the gravity of the offence committed
by the accused persons and this being an
anticipatory bail, in the opinion of this Court,
this is not a fit case where the Court can
exercise its discretion in favour of the
applicant.
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
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."
14. 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 applicants. Upon
going through the contents of the FIR, it appears
that prima facie case is made out against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11837/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
applicant and material collected so far suggests
the involvement of the applicant in the commission
of crime.
15. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the
facts and circumstances, peculiar to the instant
case, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the
applicants have 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.
16. Hence, the present application seeking
anticipatory bail, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
17. 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
