[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Manoj Jain (S/O Late Basantilal Jain) vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 7592 of 2026
================================================
MANOJ JAIN (S/O LATE BASANTILAL JAIN) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
JURIS LEGAL PRACTITIONERS(17818) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHAD O JOSHI(11428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 30/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), the applicants
have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210046251233 of 2025,
registered with Puna Police Station, District: Surat for the offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
3. Encircled facts of the case are that the applicants herein, who
are legal heirs of deceased Basantilal Jain, after demise of
Basantilal Jail, despite knowing the fact that the property being of
a joint ownership, having 50% share by Will of one of the sons of
late Basantilal Jain, sold the family property to the de facto
complainant for a consideration of Rs.88,51,000/-, for which, the de
facto complainant also paid a token amount of Rs.25,51,000/- to the
applicants and thereafter, upon de facto complainant having known
about such a Will, though cancelled the deal, the applicants did
not repay the amount paid by the de facto complainant and hence,
the FIR in question has been filed.
3.1 Pursuant to FIR, the applicants approached the Sessions
Court concerned seeking anticipatory bail which came to be
rejected vide order dated 19.12.2025. Therefore, the applicants are
before this Court by this application.
4. Heard, learned advocate for the applicants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
4.1 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
the applicants are innocent and are falsely implicated in the crime
in question. He submitted that no case is made out against the
applicants for the offence alleged.
4.2 It is submitted that though cause of action arose on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
24.05.2024, the FIR is lodged on 03.10.2025 for which, no plausible
reason is forthcoming on record.
4.3 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that in
fact, the de facto complainant could not pay the differential amount
and thus, on incomplete facts, the FIR in question has been filed.
4.4 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
the act alleged in the FIR reveals to be purely of a civil nature to
which, criminal colour has been given. He submitted that the de
facto complainant can very well agitate his claim by resorting to
appropriate civil remedy.
4.5 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
even if the Will is presumed to be genuine, the applicant No. 2
herein being wife of late Basantilal Jain, is entitled to 50% share in
the property in question. It is stated that there is no Agreement to
Sell between the de facto complainant and the applicants and only
relying upon a diary, the applicants are arraigned in the offence.
4.6 It is submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the applicants are not fulfilled. It is stated that the
property in question belongs to the applicants and the dispute
pertains to such a family property only.
4.7 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
so far as the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are lady
applicants, aged about 71 and 42 respectively, and no overt act has
been committed and/or attributed to them.
4.8 The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the
nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this
stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants
will keep themselves available during the course of investigation
and trial also and will not flee from justice.
4.9 The learned advocate for the applicants further states that
the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and
to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.
5. As against this, the 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
and requested not to entertain this application.
5.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
despite having knowledge that the property in question is a family
property and the brother of the applicant No. 1 has a equal right in
the property, taking advantage of the they being residing in
London, the applicants, in connivance with each other, committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
the crime in question.
5.2 It is stated that while the applicants sold the family property
keeping in dark the de facto complainant who paid a huge amount
towards such a sale, even after cancelling the deal, the applicants
did not return his money and thereby, duped him. Accordingly, it
is urged that in the given facts and circumstances of the case,
discretion may not be exercised and requested to reject this
application.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in plethora of decisions of the 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
applicant 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 applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits
of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
avoided. However, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:
A] so far as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned:
a) the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are aged 71 and 42
respectively;
b) so far as applicant No. 2 - Purnimaben Jain is
concerned, if the Will is believed to be genuine, she is still an
owner of half of the property as per the Will of her deceased
husband inasmuch as, according to Will, half of the property
has been vested into the brother of the applicant No. 1
namely Sunil Jail and his wife Rachna Jain;
c) the applicant No. 2 is the wife of late Basantilal Jain
and appears to have no role played in the alleged crime;
d) so far as applicant No. 3 is concerned, she is wife of
applicant No. 1, she also appears to have no role to play in
the crime in question as the entire transaction has been
entered into by the applicant No. 1 and it seems that only
some amount has been transferred through in the bank
account of applicant No. 3;
e) further, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they
have no past antecedents;
f) the learned advocate for the applicants has assured
that the applicants will not flee from justice and would be
available during investigation as well as the trial.
B] so far as the applicant No. 1 is concerned;
a) he is the person alleged to have stated that even if
there is a Will, it is internal family matter. However, the fact
remains that on the demise of Basantilal Jain, by virtue of a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Will, half of the property in question, vested into the brother
of the applicant No. 1 and the wife of brother of applicant
No. 1 and despite such knowledge, he entered into such a
transaction with the de facto complainant knowingfully well
and sold him the family property;
b) Further, substantial amount has been paid by the de
facto complainant to the applicant No. 1;
c) It is also required to be noted that the brother of the
applicant No. 1 and the wife of brother of applicant No. 1
reside in London, UK;
d) It is also required to be noted that Warrant under
Section 72 of the CrPC came to be issued against the
applicant No. 1;
e) In view of decision of the Apex Court in Balmukund
Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 158, more particularly, para 42 to 44, no case is
made in favour of the applicant No. 1 herein;
f) the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar
Bansal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in
para 23, has observed 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."
(emphasis supplied)
g) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this
application is required to be rejected."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the
decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present
application, however, qua applicant Nos. 2 and 3 only.
8. In the result, this application is allowed in part qua
applicant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Mrs. Purnima Jain and Mrs.
Sunita Jain, by directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of
the applicants in connection with the above-referred FIR, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with one surety of like
amount each on the following conditions that applicants:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of
the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;
(c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to
be collected by the police;
(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station as
and when called for;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court concerned
and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the
case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before
the trial Court within a week;
(g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section
483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating
during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to
witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the
investigation or trial, etc.
9. The application is rejected qua applicant No. 1 namely
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7592/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Mr. Manoj Jain.
10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
present bail application.
10.1 It is made clear that this order of anticipatory bail does not in
any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency to investigate into the charges against the
applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/37tss30426
