[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kanaiyalal Sundarjibhai Detroja vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
CHARGESHEET) NO. 26887 of 2025
==========================================================
KANAIYALAL SUNDARJIBHAI DETROJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL UNWALA WITH MR MAHESHKUMAR K PUROHIT(10627) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MRINAL BHATNAGAR(12719) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PR ABICHANDANI WITHMS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing on behalf
of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi
appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.
Pitambar Abichandani with learned advocate Ms. Poonam Maheta for the
complainant.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on
Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11189003251588 of
2025 registered with A Division Morbi City Police Station, Dist. Morbi, for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114, 120 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the
role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the
applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further contended that the
applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent - State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular
bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and
the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the
discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-
(i) At the outset, it requires to be observed that the allegation in
the FIR is for an offence, which has been committed from
17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022, whereas the FIR has been registered
on 28.08.2025. It would appear in this regard that while the
FIR appears to have been registered upon the direction of a
learned Magistrate in Criminal Inquiry No.163/2023 at the
instance of the complainant, yet it would appear that there are
certain gaps, which have raised a question as regards the bona
fide of the complainant himself.
(ii) It would appear in this regard that the FIR inter alia states
about the complainant having a parcel of land in Mehsana
District and whereas the applicant and his son having
approached the complainant, who also appears happens to be
near relative and was staying at Morbi, for purchase of the land
in question.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
(iii) The allegation being that the complainant was brought to
Ahmedabad and whereas the complainant was made to stay at
the residence of the applicant and he was made to consume
liquor and he was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar
under the influence of liquor and whereas he did have any clue
as to what he was to doing when he had registered the land in
favour of the applicant herein or his son.
(iv) The complaint further states that the applicant and his son had
thereafter by obtaining cheques of the bank account of the
present complainant, siphoned off the consideration amount
coming to Rs.1,14,00,000/- approximately, more particularly
the amount having been deposited in the account of the
applicant and / or his son and / or certain firms, which belong
to the applicant or his son. The transactions happening from
17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022.
(v) It would appear in this regard that since the investigation did
not reveal anything as regards the status of the complainant
when he had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar for
registration of the sale deed, this Court had called upon the
learned APP to instruct the Investigating Officer to take
appropriate instructions in this regard and whereas the
statement dated 08.01.2025 of the then Sub-Registrar, Kalol, is
tendered before this Court and whereas it appears that the
Sub-Registrar clearly submits that while, as a general rule, any
person coming to have sale deed executed is asked by the Sub-
Registrar as regards his state of mind whether he is entering
into the transaction out of his free will etc. and it is only upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
appropriate satisfaction as regards the voluntary nature of the
transactions does the Registrar permit the documentation. It
also appears that the Sub-Registrar had asked the various
questions to the seller of the property i.e. the complainant
herein and based upon that, the Registrar had come to a
conclusion that the complainant was in normal state of mind,
both mentally and physically, and that he did not appear to be
intoxicated at all.
(vi) It also appears that the Investigating Officer has obtained a
copy of the CCTV footage, when the sale deed had taken place
and whereas a perusal of the CCTV footage also very clearly
reveals that the complainant does appear to be intoxicated or
under any influence at all.
(vii) It also appears that the second part of the allegation is with
regard to the consideration amount, having been siphoned off
by the present applicant and his son and whereas it appears
that the cheques were issued whereby the amounts were
transferred from 17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022. It would appear in
this regard that the first complaint was made by the present
applicant on 06.12.2022 i.e. after more than a period of two
months from the date the first cheque had been encashed.
Most importantly, it appears that the present complainant had
an SMS facility on his mobile phone, whereby upon any
cheque being deposited in his account for either credit / debit,
the bank would immediately send an SMS to the complainant.
(viii) It thus, prima facie appears that there is something more to the
transaction than meets the eye, inasmuch as the FIR itself
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
appears to be questionable as the first part of the FIR prima
facie appears to be exaggerated as it does not appear that the
complainant, when he had gone to register the property, was
intoxicated or under influence of any substance of such nature.
As far as the second part is concerned as noticed hereinabove,
though the applicant was intimated real time about money
being withdrawn from his account, yet from 17.10.2022 to
27.11.2022, the complainant waited till 06.12.2022 to file his
first application. Considering the above, to this Court, it would
appear that while there may be some part of the transactions,
which may be questionable as far as the applicant is concerned,
yet overall, the entire FIR appears to have some very serious
anomalies, benefit of which would accrue in favour of the
applicant.
(ix) An important issue raised in this regard by the learned
advocate Mr. Abichandani for the complainant being that the
credentials of the applicant himself may be appreciated
inasmuch as the applicant, though was detained by the officer
of Vadodara police, yet the applicant had managed to abscond
from the police station and whereas under such circumstances,
no discretion may be exercised in favour of the present
applicant.
To this Court it would appear that while it is alleged that
applicant had absconded, while he was in custody, yet it also
does not appear that the applicant except for the present FIR
was wanted in any other case. It has also been pointed out to
this Court that at the relevant point of time, anticipatory bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
application of the present applicant was pending and upon
anticipatory bail application being withdrawn, the applicant had
either surrendered or had been arrested by the police authority.
Having regard to such a position, to this Court, it would not
appear that the present applicant having come out from the
detention of police official would have any bearing on the
present application.
(x) It also appears that the applicant is a retired employee of the
State Government / State Undertaking and except for two
antecedents under the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not
have any other antecedents.
This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information
Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is
of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to
be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.
No.11189003251588 of 2025 registered with A Division Morbi City Police
Station, Dist. Morbi, on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26887/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the
residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;
[f] mark presence once a week till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter
once a month for a period of one year before the concerned police
station.
9. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be
free to take appropriate action in the matter.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to
try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
11. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any
observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this
stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant
for being released on regular bail.
12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
