Gujarat High Court
Pulkitbhai Chandrkantbhai Sathvara vs State Of Gujarat on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20172
of 2025
==========================================================
PULKITBHAI CHANDRKANTBHAI SATHVARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant who is apprehending his arrest in the
offence alleged to have been committed under
Sections 409, 465, 468, 469, 467, 471 and 167 of the
IPC, Sections 43(i) and 66 of the Information and
Technology Amendment Act, 2008 and Section 12(3)
of the Gujarat Examination (Prevention of Unfair
Means) Act, 2023 has preferred the present
application praying for anticipatory bail under
Section 482 of the BNSS. The said offence came to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
be registered vide part I CR No. 11191027250164
with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad on
26.08.2025.
2. The FIR came to be lodged by one Praveen Kumar
Chhaganbhai Savaliya, the Assistant Manager of the
Interview Branch of Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation Central Office. The Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation conducts recruitment processes
to fill up the vacancies of various departments of
the Corporation. It is mentioned in the FIR that,
the applicant who was the Head Clerk in the
Interview Branch, was assigned with the
responsibility of operating the e-mail and also
perform duties pertaining to computer and website,
which also included uploading public notice,
preparation of merit list for document verification
and uploading the same, preparing call letters,
uploading of web notification, answer key, result etc.
It is further mentioned in the FIR that, during
the various recruitment processes which were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
undertaken by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
in the year 2021, the applicant by misusing his
position had wrongfully approved the appointment of
8 persons for various posts, and thereby had
committed the offence.
3. It is fruitful to observe that in the said FIR itself,
the original complainant had mentioned about the
applicant also having added marks for 3 candidates
in the recruitment process no. 28/2023-2024 for the
post of Assistant Technical Supervisor (Engineer) for
which, an FIR was registered previously.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta for
the applicant who has reiterated the contents of the
application. Mr. Mehta has stated that, the applicant
has already been suspended from service and all the
appliances which the applicant was using in his
official capacity, have been seized by the I.O., hence,
his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned
advocate Mr. Mehta has also submitted that, in light
of the fact that a previous FIR was registered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
against the applicant under same set of
circumstances and same set of allegations, the
present FIR could not have been registered by the
Police. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta in support of
such contention has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs The Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2013 SC
3794 and in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee &
Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors . Reported in
2022 LiveLaw SC 731. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta
has more particularly drawn the attention of this
Court to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in paragraph no. 32 which is reproduced as
hereunder:-
"32) This Court has consistently laid down the law on
the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in
respect of an offence or different offences committed in
the course of the same transaction is not only
impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the
Constitution. In T.T. Anthony (supra), this Court has
categorically held that registration of second FIR
(which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
the Constitution. The following conclusion in paragraph
Nos. 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant
which read as under:
"19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge
of a police station has to commence investigation as
provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of
entry of the first information report, on coming to
know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On
completion of investigation and on the basis of the
evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under
Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and
forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under
Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a
report, if he comes into possession of further
information or material, he need not register a fresh
FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation,
normally with the leave of the court, and where during
further investigation he collects further evidence, oral
or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same
with one or more further reports; this is the import of
sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC..
20. From the above discussion it follows that under
the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,
157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or
the first information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
consequently there can be no fresh investigation on
receipt of every subsequent information in respect of
the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or
an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or
offences and on entering the FIR in the station house
diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported
in the FIR but also other connected offences found to
have been committed in the course of the same
transaction or the same occurrence and file one or
more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC..
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of
the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution and the expansive power of the police to
investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the
court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section
(8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make
further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral
and documentary) and forward a further report or
reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was,
however, observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the permission of the
court. However, the sweeping power of investigation
does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to
fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences,
consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether
before or after filing the final report under Section
173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of
Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of
the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In
our view a case of fresh investigation based on the
second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case,
filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction and in respect of
which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is
under way or final report under Section 173(2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case
for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
The above referred declaration of law by this Court
has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial
pronouncements even while carving out exceptions."
5. Heard learned APP Ms. Jhaveri, who has at the
outset submitted that the previous FIR, wherein, the
applicant came to be granted regular bail and the
present FIR, both relate to different transactions i.e.
different recruitment processes taken up during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
different time periods. According to learned APP Ms.
Jhaveri, the involvement of the applicant is writ
large on the face of investigation which has been
conducted till date, hence, the present bail
application should be rejected.
6. It is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
(supra) has observed that, "that the second FIR in
respect of an offence or different offences committed
in the course of the same transactions is not only
impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the
Constitution." It is fruitful to observe that, the
applicant came to be arraigned as accused in the
prusant FIR dated 26.08.2025, before the Karanj
Police Station, vide I-CR No. 1191027250164 of 2025,
under the same penal sections as mentioned in the
previous FIR, the periods of recruitment processes
were different, hence it cannot be said that the
present FIR was an extension of the previous FIR.
This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
though the applicant was granted regular bail in the
previous offence by the Co-ordinate Bench vide the
order passed in CR.MA No. 8125/2025 on 24.04.2025,
the present FIR came to be registered on 26.08.2025,
for his identical misdeeds committed between the
period from 26.02.2023 to 14.02.2024. Thus, the time
period of offence mentioned in both the FIRs were
different and the recruitment processes also being
different. The fact that the original complainant, the
penal sections under which the said both FIRs came
to be registered and the accused being the same,
cannot be termed as the acts of the accused
comprising of same transactions, so as to seek
benefit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra)
and Tarak Dash Mukharjee (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) and Tarak Dash
Mukharjee (supra) cannot be made applicable to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
case on hand. In the event, it does not deem fit to
this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant.
8. Consequently, the present application for anticipatory
bail is hereby dismissed.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
ANIRUDH OJHA
