[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Pathan Uveshkhan Iqbalkhan vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6740
of 2026
==========================================================
PATHAN UVESHKHAN IQBALKHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. DEVAL I. MODI(19346) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ABID R PATHAN(11217) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 04/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent - State.
1. By way of the present application under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
"BNSS"), the applicant - accused has prayed to release him on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the
FIR being C.R. No. 11191012210369/2021 registered with
Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471,
120(B) of the IPC.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly argued
that the applicant is an innocent person and, from the plain
reading of the FIR of the complainant, it appears that the
complainant has allegedly purchased the land in question in the
year 2005. As per her say, she had visited her land in the year of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
2019 i.e., after 14 years. The parties having filed a civil suit
against each other, the present dispute is also of civil in nature,
and the possession of the property is with the applicant. Earlier,
a complaint was filed at Danilimda Police Station in the year
2019, wherein the investigation was carried out and the
statement of the applicant was recorded, and finally, police
disposed of the application finding no criminal offence.
2.1. The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the
applicant has purchased the land in question by following proper
procedure, and a sale deed was also executed. The applicant had
subsequently purchased the said plots, and in the earlier
transactions, the applicant was not a party. The applicant has not
created any bogus documents or forged any signatures,
therefore, the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail.
3. Per contra, the Learned APP has argued that there are ten
past antecedents against the present applicant, and therefore
on that ground alone, the present application is required to be
rejected. Moreover, during the investigation, it has been found
that the present applicant is not the owner of the property and
has forged a fraudulent, notarized sale agreement stating it was
executed by one Lallubhai. The applicant has illegally occupied
the premises, and the custodial interrogation is necessary to
investigate the forged sale agreement. There are ten
antecedents against the applicant which are as follows;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
Police Legal Provisions /
No. Register Number
Station Sections
Crime Register No. IPC Sections 323, 506(1),
1 Danilimda
3087/2019 294(B), 114
Part B
2 Danilimda 11197012201036/20 G.P. Act Section 142
Part B
3 Danilimda 11197012201412/20 G.P. Act Section 142
Part B IPC Section 188, Disaster
4 Danilimda 11197012201413/20 Management Act Section
20 51(B)
Part A
IPC Sections 406, 420, 447,
5 Danilimda 11197012210369/20
465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)
Chapter Case No.
6 Danilimda B.N.S.S. Section 126
1155/2024
IPC Sections 323, 380, 387,
Crime Register No.
7 Danilimda 427, 452, 506(2), 294(B),
106/2019
114, G.P. Act Section 135(1)
Part B
8 Danilimda 11197012200102/20 IPC Sections 506(2), 294(B)
Part A Gujarat Land Grabbing
9 Danilimda 11197012210675/20 (Prohibition) Act Sections
21 4(3), 5(A), 5(C), 5(D), 5(E)
Chapter Case No.
10 Danilimda Cr.P.C. Section 107
657/2020
Therefore the application is required to be rejected.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, this
Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii )
nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though
at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of
evidence is not permissible. Having gone through the complaint,
prima facie, it appears that the present applicant is involved in
the offence.
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and
having considered the facts of the investigation prima facie it
appears that the present applicant has fraudulently executed a
sale agreement with respect to the property, of which he himself
was not the owner. A general power of attorney and a sale
agreement with possession have been handed over to a party
who is not the owner of the property. Accordingly, this Court
finds no basis to conclude that no prima facie case exists against
the petitioner or that his arrest would be unwarranted.
5.1. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Singhal Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr. at "Paragraph-6" are held as under;
"The criminal antecedents of the Respondent no. 2 by
itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory
bail."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
6. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Court
held that life and personal liberty are the most prized
possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest
of society and public. This is not a case, wherein accused is falsely
enraged in the offence with a view to tarnish his image.
Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is required.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs
State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2012 4 SCC 379, has been
pleased to hold as under:-
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offences are required
to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record
the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant
has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
7. It would be apposite to refer the decision of the Apex Court
rendered in case of State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna
Balothia and another reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198.
8. It would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. State
of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed thus:-
"19. 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 the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial
to ensure a just outcome."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6740/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
9. For the foregoing reasons and considering the law laid
down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion under Section 438 of the Code/482 of
BNSS in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, present application
does not deserve any consideration and is hereby dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
10. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
