Gujarat High Court
Ajitsingh Totaram Juneja vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17103 of 2025
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
=======================================================
AJITSINGH TOTARAM JUNEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR ZAMIR Z SHAIKH(6857) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HERSCHELLE K. RAVAL(18164) for the Respondent No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 08/09/2025
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.
11210045252721 of 2025 registered with Pandesara
Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Zamir Shaikh for the
applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the
respondent - State of Gujarat and learned
advocate, Mr. Herschelle Raval for the original
complainant.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred to
the allegations and accusation leveled in the FIR
and submitted that for the so-called incident
occurred in the month of May, 2022, FIR has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
lodged on 24.06.2025 and thus, there is gross
delay in registering the aforesaid FIR, wherein
the applicant is wrongly arraigned as accused as
the applicant is not directly or indirectly
connected and/or associated with the alleged
commission of crime. He submitted that in fact, if
the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon
the contents of the FIR, in that event, it is
found out that all the allegations and accusation
leveled against the accused, Mohanram and
Kishorilal and other accused persons and not
against the applicant herein. Referring to the
allegations and accusation leveled in the FIR, it
is submitted that rest of the accused persons have
actively participated in the commission of crime
and they have prepared the documents, wherein the
applicant has not signed any document and has not
done any business transaction in the said
premises. He submitted that the applicant is aged
about 67 years and has always extended all kind of
cooperation to the Investigating Officer as and
when the applicant was called upon for
interrogation. He submitted that entire case of
the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence
and all those documents have already been
collected by the IO. He submitted that if the
Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the
order rejecting bail application of the applicant,
in that event, it is found out that just because
of the investigation is at nascent stage and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant for the purpose of interrogation,
therefore, the said bail application was not
entertained. He, however, submitted that as stated
above, the applicant had already cooperated in the
investigation and entire case of the prosecution
is based upon documentary evidence and all those
documents are already recovered by the IO,
therefore, the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not needed 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
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.
4. 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 in fact,
specific name and role is clearly attributed to
the applicant herein in the commission of crime
and there are material and evidence available on
record, which suggest the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime. He submitted
that the father of the complainant had taken the
said property from the Government for a period of
99 years by executing mortgaged deed, however
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
thereafter, he was shifted to Mumbai for business
purpose but in the year 1996, he passed away and,
thereafter in the year 2006, the complainant
received notice from the Central Excise Department
with regard to the payment of tax of
Rs.2,71,36,199/-, therefore on making inquiry, the
complainant came to know about the forgery
committed by the accused in connivance with each
other including creation of forged and fabricated
documents, on the basis of the first power of
attorney has been executed and, thereafter, sale
deed has been executed, therefore, the aforesaid
FIR has been lodged. He submitted that in fact,
all the documents have been forged after the sad
demise of father of the complainant and thus at
the time of execution of the documents, the father
of the applicant was not available and thus, this
itself suggests about the forgery committed by the
accused in connivance with each other, therefore,
the discretion may not be exercised in favour of
the applicant. He further submitted that if the
documents are carefully examined then, it is found
out that the father of the complainant used to
signed mentioning his surname as "Chawala",
whereas in forged documents, surname is mentioned
as "Shah", therefore when prima facie it is found
out the involvement of the applicant in the
commission of crime then, the applicant is not
entitled to claim relief.
5. Learned APP further submitted that as soon as the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
complainant came to know about the forgery
committed by the accused with him, he submitted an
application in the form of complaint in the year
2010 before the concerned Police Station but no
action was taken at that relevant point of time
and, thereafter in the year 2021, once again an
application was moved, wherein preliminary inquiry
was made and during the course of investigation,
the statements of number of witnesses have been
recorded including the applicant herein and if the
statement of the present applicant is examined
then, it is found out that he has admitted in a
very categorical terms that initially he had
started his business in the name of Sheela
Printers and, thereafter, Simran Exports, however,
the said business could not run properly,
therefore, it was shut down and as the tax of
Central Excise Government could not be paid,
notice was issued upon the applicant and at that
point of time, the entire forgery has come on
surface. He, therefore, submitted that from the
above facts coupled with the documents collected
so far, it is found out the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime, therefore,
custodial interrogation of the applicant is badly
need, therefore, the present application may not
be entering.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Raval appearing for the
original complainant has adopted the arguments
canvassed by learned APP Mr. Soni and submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
that in fact, almost all the arguments have been
canvassed by learned APP, therefore, he is not
repeating the same. He, however, submitted that
considering the allegations and accusation leveled
in the FIR and the role played by the applicant in
the commission of crime, the present application
may be rejected.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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 exception 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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, if the
allegations leveled in the FIR are examined then,
it is evident that the accused have committed
forgery with the complainant by forging the power
of attorney and based on the said forged power of
attorney, they have executed the sale deed and it
is when the complainant has been served with the
notice issued by the Central Excise Department for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
the payment of the tax in crores of rupees, the
complainant did make inquiry and came to know
about the fraud and forgery committed by the
accused in connivance with each other. It is
required to be noted that when so-called documents
were executed, admittedly the father of the
complainant passed away and after his sad demise,
the documents have been forged, which itself
suggests the commission of crime by the accused in
connivance with each other. Not only that, it is
also evident from the investigation papers that
the father of the complainant while signing the
documents used to mention his surname as
"Chawala", whereas in the forged documents, it is
mentioned as "Shah". Therefore with a sole intent
to unveil the modus operandi of the applicant in
connivance with other accused, the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required and
without his custodial interrogation, it would not
be possible for the concerned Investigating
Officer to collect relevant material and evidence.
Therefore in view of the above facts of the case,
I am of the considered opinion that the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required to be
made, therefore, the present application deserves
to be rejected.
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 was not required by itself
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
applicants and material collected so far suggests
the involvement of the applicants in the
commission of crime.
15. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17103/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
16. Hence, the present application seeking for
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. 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
