Gujarat High Court
Thakor Prakashji Ramaji vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 806 of 2025
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
=======================================================
THAKOR PRAKASHJI RAMAJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG K CHAUHAN(9858) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing instant applications 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.
11206073240552/2024 registered with Vadnagar
Police Station for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
2. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan for the applicant
submitted that the FIR has been lodged against
total 6 accused persons, wherein the applicant is
shown as accused no.2. He submitted that as per
the allegations leveled in the FIR, the accused
were calling the innocent and gullible persons and
thereby giving attractive offers to invest in
share markets with good returns and relying upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the assurance, the innocent and gullible persons
have invested huge volume of amount to the tune of
Rs.1,69,29,999/- and after certain lapse of time,
the accused have switch-off their mobile and
thereby committed cheating with those innocent
persons, therefore, one of the victim had
submitted an application in the form of complaint
and pursuant to which, the investigation was
carried out by the Police Officer and during the
course of investigation, one of the accused was
apprehended and during the course of his
interrogation, the name of the applicant and other
accused has come on surface, therefore, the
aforesaid FIR has been lodged against them. He
submitted that it is settled proposition of law
that only on the basis of the statement of the co-
accused, the person cannot be apprehended. He
further submitted that in fact, there is delay in
registration of the FIR and the material collected
so far by the concerned IO would clearly suggest
that the present applicant is not directly or
indirect connection with the alleged commission of
crime and all the offences are exclusively triable
by the Court of Magistrate. He submitted that
considering the allegations leveled against the
applicant, custodial interrogation 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 on
instructions submitted that he is ready and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
willing to abide by all the conditions including
imposition of conditions while releasing the
applicant on anticipatory bail. It is, therefore
urged that considering the above facts, the
applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
3. 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 submitted that name and
specific role is clearly spelt out in the body of
the FIR. He submitted that on the basis of the
written application, the investigation was carried
out and during the course of investigation, the
co-accused, who happens to be the partner of the
present applicant, was apprehended by the IO and
while recording his statement, he has disclosed
the entire sequence of incidents of events in a
very graphical manner including the name of the
applicant and other accused and on the basis of
which, the applicant is arraigned as accused and
there are ample material and evidence collected so
far against the applicant, which clearly goes on
to show that the applicant is involved in the
commission of crime. He submitted that it is found
out during the investigation that with the help of
forged documents, sim-cards have been obtained,
with the help of which, they used to call the
innocent and gullible persons to dupe them to the
tune of Rs.11.00 crores. He submitted that so far
as the role attributed to the applicant herein is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
concerned, it is found out from the investigation
papers that the applicant constituted a team of
the young boys residing nearby area and asked them
to call innocent and gullible persons with the
help of different dummy sim-cards and gave them a
place in the field of Prakashji Ramaji Bakor and
thereby, the accused have duped number of persons.
He submitted that in fact, the applicant was in
constant touch with other accused and the said
fact is found out from Software Defined Radio
(SDR) as well as Customer Acquisition Form (CAF)
including CDR collected during the course of
investigation. He further submitted that during
the course of investigation, it has also come to
the notice of the concerned IO that there are past
antecedents of the applicant. He further submitted
that as the applicant was evading his arrest, the
concerned IO submitted an application under
Section 72 of the CrPC before the court concerned,
wherein an order came to be passed issuing warrant
against the applicant. It is, therefore, urged
that considering the above facts, the present
applications may be rejected as there is prima
facie case made out against the applicant and the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required.
4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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.
5. 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
exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
6. It is well settled that an application preferred
for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to
be granted in exception cases. The parameters and
considerations governing the grant of anticipatory
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
bail have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would
like to 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
held as follows:
"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 of the accused but
several other purposes. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may
provide information leading to discovery of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be
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
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".
7. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs.
State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph
No.21, observed as under:-
"21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed 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."
8. 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 court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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 the accused's likelihood to
repeat similar or the other offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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."
9. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is
the specific case of the prosecution that the
accused, with the help of forged documents, have
obtained sim-card to call the innocent and
gullible persons and by calling them, they had
given attractive offers to invest their hard
earned money with good return and they compelled
the innocent persons to transfer the amount in
their account and on receipt of the same, they
switched-off their mobile and were not traceable
for those innocent persons and by adopting such
modus operandi, they have duped innocent and
gullible persons to the tune of Rs.1,69,29,999/-.
The modus operandi of the accused has come to the
notice of the concerned Investigating Officer when
one of the victims has submitted an application in
the form of complaint and investigation thereto
was made. When the investigation was made, accused
no.1 was apprehended, who described the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
sequence of incidents of event in a very graphical
manner including the name of the applicant and
other accused persons and during the course of
investigation, the modus operandi of the accused
has come on surface. Thus all the accused in
connivance with each other have hatched well
design racket and have executed it and thereby
dupe number of innocent and gullible persons and
all those facts have been found out from the
investigation papers collected so far and yet the
investigation is under progress. It has also come
on record that this is not the first offence of
the applicant but in fact, the applicant is having
past antecedents including outside State of
Gujarat and because of evading his arrest, warrant
has already been issued upon them. I have also
also considered the investigation papers supplied
by learned APP during the course of hearing of
this application including the statements of the
witnesses, who are the victims of the scam, which
clearly goes on to show that the scam is around
Rs.11.00 crores or so and thus, number of innocent
and gullible persons have been duped by the
accused by giving attractive offer. It is also
required to be noted that some of the victims of
the act committed by the accused have also made
online complaints before the appropriate
authority. I have also considered the affidavit
filed by the IO before the court concerned at the
time of opposing the bail application preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the applicant as also findings given and
conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge while
rejecting the application of the applicant.
Therefore considering the facts of the present
case, it is not in dispute that the investigation
is at crucial stage and considering the huge scam
committed by the accused in connivance with each
other, the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required. Therefore, the present
application deserves to be rejected.
10. 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, we are satisfied
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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."
11. 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
applicants and material collected so far suggests
the involvement of the applicants in the
commission of crime.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/806/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
12. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case,
as have been analyzed hereinabove, the applicant
has failed to make out a special case for exercise
of power to grant 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.
13. Hence, the present application seeking for
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Notice is
discharged.
14. 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.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
