[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ramesh Madanlal Agrawal vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1200
of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1207 of 2026
==========================================================
RAMESH MADANLAL AGRAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP P JOSHI(1819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PRANAV DHAGAT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 11/03/2026
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of this applications 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.
11201001250001 of 2025 registered with CID Crime, District:
Gandhinagar for the offences alleged therein.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Dilip Joshi for the applicants
submits that:-
3.1 That from the entire reading of the chargesheet, more
particularly, the role attributed to the present Applicant is only
to the effect that after having sanctioned the loan to the tune
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
of Rs. 2,00,25,506/-, which has not been repaid and was taken
against plot Nos. 19, 20, 21 of Revenue Survey No. 89/1
bearing shop nos. 6 and 7 at village Padana, Taluka
Gandhidham. Except these allegations, not a single averment
is made against the present Applicant of having committed
any offence as described in the FIR, more particularly, Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of the IPC.
3.2 Learned Advocate further submits that except handing
over the loan application, there is no role of the present
Applicant either in preparing forged documents or the
valuation report and that the bank got the valuation done from
the empanelled valuer. It is the duty of the bank officer to
carry out his duties diligently for which the Applicant cannot be
held liable.
3.3 Learned Advocate for the Applicant further submits that
the bank has also initiated proceedings under the NI Act for
cheque bounce against the payment of the outstanding loan.
Learned Advocate further submits that in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1200/2026 the Applicant had deposited Rs.
63,88,162/- as well as in Criminal Misc. Application No.
1207/2026 Rs. 52,60,000/- as part payment towards the loan
and therefore, it cannot be said that from the beginning they
had intention to defraud the bank.
3.4 Lastly, he would submit that the entire case is based on
documentary evidence and all the documents concerned with
the present crime are in the custody of the investigating
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
agency and hence, no custodial interrogation of the present
Applicant is required.
3.5 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.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the
grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of
the offence and requested that this Court not entertain this
application.
4.1 Ld. APP further submits that in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 1200/2026, the Applicant had obtained a loan of Rs. 2
crore whereas, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1207/2026, the
Applicant had obtained a loan of Rs. 4,75,00,000/- based on a
valuation report which was inflated.
4.2 As far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 1200/2026 is
concerned, the original document shows a value of Rs.
8,32,000/-, whereas the forged document is to the tune of Rs.
1,38,000/- approximately. As far as Criminal Misc. Application
No. 1207/2026 is concerned, the fair market value of the
document is approximately Rs. 7,44,00,000/-, whereas as per
the forged document it is Rs. 10.04 crore.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
4.3 Learned APP further submits that even before the loan
came to be sanctioned from the head office, the letter
approving the loan had already been prepared on 13.06.2023
whereas the letter seeking sanction was sent to the head office
on 17.06.2023.
4.4 Thus, it is argued that prima facie, based on forged
documents and by inflating the value of the property, the loan
was obtained.
4.5 Lastly, it is argued that though the property value may
increase by efflux of time, that itself would not entitle the
Applicant to the grant of bail.
4.6 Learned APP further argued that the charge sheet has
already been filed against some of the accused, wherein the
present applicants-accused are shown as absconding. Thus,
when the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation,
the ground that the applicants' custody is not required, as
argued by the learned Advocate for the Applicant, would not
be a ground to allow the present application and therefore
prayed to reject the said applications.
At this stage, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits
that no proceedings under Section 70, 82 etc under the
provisions of CRPC have been undertaken by the concerned
Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This Court has
gone through the contents of the FIR. On reading of the FIR, it
transpires that at Sr. No. 12, Ramesh Madanlal Agrawal and at
Sr. No. 18 Shubham Ramesh Agrawal are shown.
5.1 However, at the end of the FIR, it is clearly stated that
from 2016 to 2023, Accused Nos. 1 to 20 in connivance with
each other have got up forged documents with regard to the
valuation report and incomplete construction work and by
preparing forged documents used the same to obtain loans
and thereby committed forgery of Rs. 64 crores and odd by not
repaying the loan on time.
5.2 It is also required to be noted that not only the present
Applicants but also the office bearers and officers of the bank
are involved in the alleged crime, and when the statement of
the valuer is taken into consideration, it prima facie surfaces
on record that the original valuation report as stated by the
valuer is much on the lower side whereas the document
submitted by the applicants bearing the valuation certificate is
on a much higher side. Based on which, the loan came to be
sanctioned even prior to getting sanction from the head office,
which would also be evident from the charge sheet papers.
5.3 Under the circumstances, merely because the entire case
is based on documentary evidence, it cannot be said that when
no case of custodial interrogation is made out, that itself
cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail, as held in the
case of Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1200/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
5.4 Even otherwise, considering the facts and circumstances
on hand, if are tested on the principles laid down in the case of
Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 665, the facts do not fall within the parameter
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the
present Applications stands rejected, more particularly in view
of the fact that the present applicants are shown absconders in
the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency against
some of the accused persons.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
