[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vishnucharandasji Guruswami ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025

                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/24872/2025                            ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

                                                                                                         undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 24872
                                                  of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                VISHNUCHARANDASJI GURUSWAMI VAIKUNTPRIYADASJI
                                                    Versus
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       DHRUVIN P BHUPTANI(8295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       KISHAN Y DAVE(8293) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
                               DESAI

                                                     Date : 28/11/2025

                                                      ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant who happens to be the managing

trustee of Sahajanand Education Trust, Damnagar,

Taluka:Lathi, District:Amreli, is apprehending arrest at

the hands of Damnagar Police, Amreli, for the offense

alleged to have commenced under Section Section 482 of

BNSS, 2023, registered vide FIR No.11193017240218 of

2025.

2. The FIR came to be registered by one Jigarbhai

Chandrakant Hingu on 29.10.2024 against five accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

persons and the name of the present applicant was

disclosed during investigation as the main accused.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruvin P. Bhuptani

who has at the outset submitted that, the applicant is the

Managing Trustee of the Sahajanand Education Trust,

established for the purpose of education development of

the public at large. He is aged 60 years and is having

blot-less career till date. According to Mr.Bhuptani, a

donation to the tune of Rs.5 crores was given to the trust

by way of cheque of SBI Bank, Damnagar Branch. Co-

accused Vipul @ Pappu Sharma had informed that the

said cheque would be presented in the bank, so as to be

deposited in the Trust's account. It is further mentioned

that, after some time the bank clerk had approached the

original complainant i.e. the bank manager along with the

cheque which was drawn in favour of Sahajanand

Education Trust by Satsang, which was brought by two

persons and upon comparing the signature on the cheque

with the online record, the said signatures had differed,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

and they had found the cheque to be suspicious.

Subsequently, upon detailed verification, the said cheque

appeared to be a false one and the FIR came to be

registered. Mr.Bhuptani has submitted that, there is no

iota of the evidence as regards the applicant having

presented the cheque or he having told the bank manager

to clear the cheque, rather there is not a whisper in the

entire FIR about the role of the applicant. Mr.Bhuptani

has further submitted that, the case pertains to the

documentary evidence and as such, the custody of the

applicant is not required. The co-accused has been

released on bail hence, this application be allowed.

4. Heard Learned APP Mr.Soaham Joshi who has

strongly opposed this application submitting that, all the

accused including the applicant had not only connived but

also conspired with each-other, to deposit a forged

cheque to the tune of Rs.5 crores to the trust's account.

Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of the Court to the

discovery panchnama which was drawn during the course

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

of investigation by the IO, whereby, blank cheques, colour

photocopies of cheques and self inked rubber stamp was

discovered. Mr.Joshi has drawn attention of this Court

towards affidavit of the IO which reveals that, the

applicant was to pay commission to accused no.1 to 5

after the cheque of Rs.5 crores would have been

deposited in the trust's account. The IO had also

mentioned that, the applicant had called the original

complainant to immediately deposit the said cheque in

the trust's account, by making several phone calls to him.

Mr.Joshi has also drawn the attention of the Court to the

call record details of the applicant whereby, he had

spoken to co-accused Alpesh Shah and co-accused Vipul

@ Pappu Sharma by way of 125 and 453 calls,

respectively, during the preceding three months of the

incident. Mr.Joshi has also submitted that, the applicant

has various criminal antecedents and there are number of

cheque bounce cases being registered against him.

5. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs State of Punjab reported

in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in para 23, which reads as under :-

"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice."

Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of

Gujarat in the case of Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC

244993 has observed in para 9 thus:-

"9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid down by the apex court and considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after considering the observations made by the learned sessions judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Sumitha

Pradeep Vs Arun Kumar C.K. And Anr. reported in

(2022) 17 SCC 391 has observed in para 12 which is

reproduced herein:-

"12.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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/24872/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025

undefined

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 anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

The aforesaid observations have to be considered

while deciding this application.

6. Thus, considering the submissions of both the

learned advocates and more particularly the submissions

of the learned APP and also considering the above

referred judgements by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this

Court does not deem it fit to exercise discretion in favour

of the applicant, who prima-facie does not appear to be

simple saint who has devoted his life for the betterment

and upliftment of the society. Rather, his saffron robes

only appears to be a facade.

NEUTRAL CITATION