Soni Vimal Motilal vs State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 2026

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.MA/25019/2025                                              CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

                                                                                                                          undefined




                                                                                        Reserved On : 08/01/2026
                                                                                      Pronounced On : 13/03/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 25019
                                                  of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

                       ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

========================================================== SONI VIMAL MOTILAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR A A ZABUAWALA(6823) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

CAV ORDER

1. The applicant who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Anjar Police Station, District: Kachchh has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), praying for anticipatory bail. The FIR in question came to be registered vide I CR No.11993003230244 of 2023 with Anjar Police Station,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

District: Kachchh, for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 395, 323, 170, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The applicant by way of this application has stated that, he is innocent and has not committed any criminal act.

Upon bare perusal of entire FIR, except his name, nothing emerges from the same. It is further mentioned that, the applicant is an editor of local news paper "Katch Kalapi" actively engaged in exposing social and legal issues in public interest. As per the case of the applicant, he having received reliable information about hotel "Holiday Resort" illegally selling liquor, had made several representations and complainants before the concerned authorities to take appropriate legal actions against the said hotel, however, the authorities had not acted in response to his representations and complaints, and harboring grudge and malice, the owners of the said hotel had got registered a false FIR against him. It is also mentioned that, the applicant's custodial interrogation is not required, hence, his bail application be allowed and he be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to necessary conditions.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. A. Zabuawala for the applicant who has argued at length. He has reiterated the averments of the application. Mr. Zabuawala has specifically questioned the bonafides of the FIR since, the same was lodged after a delay of 3 days, for which,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

no plausible explanation was given by the original complainant. Mr. Zabuawala has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the trial has already begun, and the applicant has been granted bail in a subsequent offence. According to Mr. Zabuawala, for the news items which were published in the newspaper "Katch Kalapi", which is owned by the applicant, he has been falsely arraigned as an accused in the offence which he had never committed, hence, this application should be allowed and the applicant be granted anticipatory bail, subject to necessary conditions.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. S. Datta for the original complainant who has drawn the attention of the Court towards the observations of the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anjar-Kachchh, in Criminal Misc. Application No.347 of 2025, which was preferred by the applicant praying for anticipatory bail. According to Mr. Datta, the applicant had impersonated himself as a police officer, and had demanded money. He along with other co-accused had come to the resort and had committed dacoity by looting Rs.1 lakh from one of the witnesses, which amount is yet to be recovered. The applicant is a habitual offender. The other co-accused have been identified by the witness in T.I. parade, which was conducted by the I.O. There are statements of the eye witnesses to the incident. Mr. Datta has clarified that, when anticipatory bail was earlier granted to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

applicant, the Court did not have all the materials on hand, including the antecedents of the applicant, however, Hon'ble High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the applicant, giving him the liberty to approach the trial court once again. Mr. Datta has also submitted that, parity cannot be extended in favour of the applicant, as the accused who are granted anticipatory bail, had lesser roles to play in the offence, and were also not named in the FIR. Hence, Mr. Datta has urged the Court to reject this application.

5. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent -

State has submitted that, in the first instance, the learned Sessions Judge of Anjar-Kachchh had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant since, the I.O. could not remain present during the hearing of the said application, and considering the said fact as well as other facts which had emerged during the investigation, the High Court was pleased to allow the application preferred by the original complainant for cancellation of bail against the present applicant, vide Cr.M.A. No. 10824 of 2023 dated 03.10.2025. According to Mr. Joshi, the applicant habitually indulges in extorting money, there are as many as 5 criminal antecedents against him, hence, his bail application should be rejected.

6. At the outset, the FIR came to be lodged by one Krunalbhai Anilbhai Kataria who is manager in the liquor shop of Hotel Holiday Resort situated at Meghpar

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

Borichi, Anjar. He has mentioned that, he was present in the liquor shop on 16.03.2023 in the evening when, he was informed by Sukhpalsingh, the delivery boy of his liquor shop that, bell boy Ajay had received a phone call from someone who was waiting in the parking area in need of liquor, hence, the original complainant had told Sukhpalsingh to fetch the health permit and visitor permit from the said persons, however, after sometime Sukhpalsingh had called the original complainant from his mobile phone wherein, he had informed that, upon asking for permit from the said persons, they had told him that they were police personnel and nobody should ask permit from them, and they would never show their permit, and saying so, they had forced Sukhpalsingh to sit inside their car. It is further mentioned that they were 5 people, and all of them had physically abused him. They had asked him to call their manager as such, the original complainant had there after gone to the parking area where, he saw a black coloured KUV 100 Mahindra car with a person standing outside car. This person had told him that, he was Vimal Soni, a police personnel from Anjar Police Station, and had inquired whether the original complainant was giving liquor in black, to which, the original complainant had told that they were supplying liquor to whomsoever who had permit. However, the said person had told him that, he had all the evidence and saying so, he had started beating him, and had asked for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and if he would not give then, he was threatened with a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

police case. This person had also told the original complainant to inquire about him from Sunil, the manager of Sarovar Portica Liquor Shop. There after, the applicant and another person had forcibly taken out Rs.1 lakh which was kept in his pocket, and had also threatened him that, he would have to pay Rs.1 lakh every month. At that time, Dilipsingh, a salesman in the said hotel had come there, hence, all these persons had made Sukhpalsingh get out of the car, and had there after left the place. The original complainant had there after informed the owner Kamalbhai Garg, and had inquired about the applicant from Sunil, the liquor shop manager of Sarovar Portica to which, Sunil had told him that the applicant was resident of Bhuj, and a press reporter of Katch Kalapi News. Thus, the FIR was lodged and subsequently registered.

7. The applicant was initially granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Anjar, vide order passed in Cr.M.A. No.150 of 2023 on 29.04.2023. However, there after, the original complainant having challenged the impugned order before the High Court by way of Cr.M.A. (for cancellation of bail) No.10824 of 2023, the same was allowed, and bail was cancelled with liberty being granted to the applicant to prefer a fresh bail application before learned Sessions Court. The High Court in said order noted that the grievance of the applicant i.e. the original complainant which was raised in Cr.M.A. No.10824 of 2023 was genuine, but, had also

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

observed that the grievance raised by the accused was also genuine. Subsequently, the applicant had preferred a fresh bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Anjar-Kachchh, vide Cr.M.A. No. 347 of 2025, which came to be rejected by way of reasoned order, pursuant to which, the present application has been preferred.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to observe that the learned Sessions Judge while enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr.M.A. No.150 of 2023, had imposed conditions whereby, 'the applicant should not indulge in criminal activities' was one of the conditions, however, from the investigation papers, it appears that a subsequent FIR also came to be registered against the applicant.

9. The I.O. during the course of investigation has conducted T.I. parade wherein, two co-accused namely Karanabhai Rabari and Rajeshbhai Danger have been identified by the witnesses. The I.O. had recorded the statements of Sukhpalsingh Rampalsingh, the delivery boy of liquor shop of Hotel Holiday Resort, Ajaysingh Mahendrasingh Rajput, the bell boy of the said hotel and Dilipsingh Saitansingh Gehlot, the salesman in the said hotel. All the three witnesses have mentioned in detail about the entire incident, and how the applicant along with other co-accused had looted Rs.1 lakh from the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

delivery boy Sukhpalsingh. The learned Sessions Judge, Anjar-Kachchh, in his order passed in Cr.M.A. No.347 of 2025, has observed in para-5 thus:

"I have gone through the bail application and also considered the arguments of both the sides. Considering the police papers, it transpires that present applicant/accused and others are standing in the parking and called the manager for giving liquor and delivery boy has asked for the permit, hence, the accused and some other has quarreled with the Manager of resort and said that they belongs to police department and you are selling the liquor in black money and also accused has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- robbed from the complainant and he was also kidnapped by the accused and this applicant-accused has said that asked your manager that who I am and the applicant-accused and others caught the complainant. Name of the present applicant-accused is also mentioned in the FIR and also a past criminal history mentioned in the affidavit. Around six offences are registered against the applicant- accused and not co-operate in the investigation etc. facts was also stated by the I.O. on oath in his affidavit. The role of the present applicant-accused and others are different hence, principle of parity is not applicable to this application. Considering the nature of offence and the allegation made against the applicant/accused and also considering the affidavit of I.O. he has also said that till muddamal is not recover and considering the arguments of AGP this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers in favour of applicants/accused."

10. So far as the FIR having been lodged after three days of the incident, would be matter of evidence at the time of trial. So also, the news about hotel "Holiday Resort"

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/25019/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026

undefined

indulging in illegal sale of liquor being published by the applicant in his newspaper, being authentic or otherwise would also be tested during the trial.

11. Thus, considering the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and he having played a direct and express role in the commission of the present offence and there being three eye witnesses to the incident, it does not deem fit to this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application is hereby rejected.

(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)

Further Order :-

After the pronouncement of the above order, learned advocate Mr. A. A. Zabuawala for the applicant has requested to stay this order for a period of Four weeks.

Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has objected to the said request submitting that, the said order was passed on merits, hence, should not be stayed. The request of learned advocate Mr. Zabuawala is turned down.