Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Purohit vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 3336 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Purohit vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2026

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/8557/2025                                       CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                                                               Reserved On   : 29/01/2026
                                                                               Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                                                8557 of 2025

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

PRAVINBHAI GORDHANBHAI PUROHIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

========================================================== Appearance:

PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

Date: 08/05/2026

CAV ORDER

1. The applicant who is the original complainant has preferred

the present application under Sections 482 and 483(3) of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for cancellation of

anticipatory bail, which was granted to the respondent No.2 -

accused vide order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the 6 th Additional

Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in CRMA No.1052 of 2025 in

connection with the FIR bearing No.11191006250079 of 2025 dated

23.03.2025, lodged with Bodakdev Police Station, Ahmedabad.

2. The applicant by way of his application has submitted that,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

the learned Additional Sessions Court Ahmedabad (rural) has

committed a grave error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent

No.2 - accused, overlooking the serious nature of offences involving

forgery, cheating and misrepresentation, committed by the accused.

The impugned order dated 09.04.2025, passed in CRMA No.1052 of

2025, has failed to adequately appreciate the prima facie evidence

on record, demonstrating systematic fraud committed by the

respondent No.2 - accused including, deliberate forgery of

agriculturist certificates and misuse of a false identity. It is further

mentioned that, the accused deliberately forged agriculturist

certificates and fraudulently represented himself as a legitimate

agriculturist. The same is held to be false and forged, vide order

dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Collector, Mahesana and order

dated 27.06.2022, passed by the Deputy Collector, Kadi. As per the

say of the applicant, such forgery clearly attracts Sections 336 and

338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 however, these Sections

had not been added by the Investigating Officer, indicating

inadequacies in the ongoing investigation. It is also mentioned that,

because of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused being

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

prejudicial to the interest of justice, as the investigation is at a

nascent and a critical stage, custodial interrogation of the accused is

essential for uncovering the full extent of his fraudulent conduct,

including identifying other potentially involved parties, recovering

crucial evidence, and preventing tempering with evidence or

intimidation of witnesses. It is also mentioned that, because of the

accused's deliberate conduct of misrepresentation and forgery, there

is strong likelihood of further interference with the investigated

process, influencing witnesses and destruction or manipulation of

documentary evidence. Hence, the applicant has prayed to allow the

present application and cancel the anticipatory bail, which has been

granted to the respondent No.2 - accused by the 6 th Additional

Sessions Court of Ahmedabad (Rural), vide order dated 09.04.2025,

passed in CRMA No.1052 of 2025.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prithu Parimal for the applicant,

who has reiterated the averments of the application. Mr. Parimal

has also placed on record the additional affidavit on behalf of the

applicant, together with other relevant documents. Mr. Parimal has

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2019)

17 SCC 326.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. V. N. Bhamare for the respondent

No.2 - accused, who has strongly opposed this application

submitting that, the respondent No.2 - accused has cooperated with

the investigation. He has also submitted his signatures for

examination by the FSL. It is not proved that, the partnership firm

had given any money to the respondent No.2 - accused to purchase

the land in question. Mr. Bhamare has also invited the attention of

this Court to the partnership deed which is placed on record, and

has specifically submitted that, in the partnership deed itself it is

not mentioned that, the accused had purchased land from the

money of the firm. Mr. Bhamare has further submitted that, the

amount towards the sale of land was paid by the accused, and if at

all the partnership firm had paid some money, they can recover the

same from the accused by resorting to civil remedies as prescribed

under law. The entire investigation is over hence, the application is

required to be rejected.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

5. Heard learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya on behalf of

respondent - state. Mr. Pandya who has adopted the submissions of

learned advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pandya has stated that,

though the order passed by the ACJM on 13.11.2025 is not

challenged, the offence under grave Sections was made out and the

respondent No.2 - accused should have surrendered in view of

graver Sections which came to be added, and should have applied

for fresh bail. Mr. Pandya has further submitted that, the offence

which came to be added subsequently, prima facie appear to be

cognizable and non-bailable, the procedure which has to be

followed by the trial Courts upon addition of graver Sections, is

prescribed in Pradeep Ram's(supra) case. Hence, Mr. Pandya has

urged the Court to pass necessary order.

6. The applicant along with the respondent No.2 - accused and

three other individuals had started the partnership business of

development of residential plots in the name and style of

M/s.TATTVA GREENS with effect from 01.07.2021. A partnership

deed to that effect was entered upon, specifying the rights and

duties of each of the partners, including all other incidental

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

transactions of the said business. The applicant had a share of

profit/loss to the extent of 35% in the said business, whereas, the

respondent No.2 - accused had a share of profit/loss to the extent

of 10% in the said business, whereas, other partners namely Kishan

Kailashbhai Rajput, Mukesh Jialal Bhatia and Jitendra Bhimjibhai

Parmar, each had share of profit/loss to the extents of 20%, 20%

and 15% respectively in the said business.

7. As alleged in the FIR, the respondent No.2 - accused along

with a broker had shown lands in the vicinity of Bavlu village to

the applicant, and he being interested in buying those lands, had

decided to purchase the same and on behalf of the partnership firm

M/s.TATTVA GREENS had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in the bank

account of the respondent No.2 - accused. However, the respondent

No.2 - accused instead of purchasing the said land for the

partnership firm, had purchased in his and the broker Manojbhai

Patel@Kabhai's names. The respondent No.2 - accused, though not

being a farmer/agriculturist had falsely projected himself as so, and

on the basis of the same, had purchased the land however,

thereafter, the land was never passed on to the partnership firm. As

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

such, the FIR in question came to be registered against the

respondent No.2 - accused. Since the respondent No.2 - accused

had falsely become a farmer/agriculturist, the premium to the tune

of Rs.2,64,00,000/- had to be paid by the applicant to the

government.

8. The respondent No.2 - accused by way of CRMA No.1052 of

2025 had preferred an anticipatory bail application before the 6 th

Additional Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed by the said

Court vide order dated 09.04.2025.

9. Initially, the FIR came to be registered under Sections

316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the BNS 2023 however, thereafter, the

Investigating Officer had preferred an application before the

concerned 8th ACJM of Ahmedabad (Rural) Court, praying for

addition of Sections 336(2), 338 and 340(2) in the offences which

were registered earlier.

10. The I.O. had also preferred an application before the learned

ACJM of Ahmedabad (Rural) Court, praying to cancel the

anticipatory bail which was granted to him earlier, on the ground

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

of addition of new graver Sections and for the purpose of collecting

specimen signatures of the respondent No.2 - accused so as to be

sent to the FSL for examination. The said application preferred by

the investigating Officer came to be rejected by the 8 th ACJM of

Ahmedabad (Rural) Court, vide its order dated 13.11.2025.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Pradeep

Ram(supra), in para 31 has observed thus:-

"31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:

31.1 The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. 31.2 The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody.

31.3 The court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-bailable offences

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

31.4 In a case where as accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail."

12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. X vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw

(SC) 205 in para 20, has reiterated the observations made in the

judgment of Pradeep Ram(supra), and has observed thus:-

"20. As can be discerned from the observations made in Pradeep Ram (Supra), addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged where his application for bail was considered and a favorable order was passed. The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further cognizable and non- bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newely added offences. The Investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter XXXIIII of the Statute

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

that deals with provisions relating to bails and bonds. On such application being moved, the Court that may have released the accused on bail or the Appellate Court/superior Court in exercises of special powers conferred on it, can direct a person who has been released on bail earlier, to be arrested and taken into custody."

13. Thus, considering the facts of the present case, the applicant

was granted anticipatory bail by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions

Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural) Court vide order passed in CRMA

No.1052 of 2025 on 09.04.2025 however, thereafter, the

Investigating Officer having preferred an application to add Sections

336(2), 338 and 340(2) in the FIR, which was previously filed only

under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The

learned 8th ACJM had issued summons to the respondent No.2 -

accused under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 338 and

340(2) of the BNS, 2023, vide order dated 14.10.2025.

14. It is pertinent to observe that, the Hon'ble Apex court had

made observations in respect of circumstances, where, after grant of

bail to an accused upon addition of cognizable and non-bailable

offences as mentioned herein above. In the present case, upon

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

addition of the graver Sections of the BNS, 2023, the respondent

No.2 - accused had neither surrender nor applied for bail for the

newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. Whereas, the

Investigating Officer having submitted an application for addition of

said Sections, the same was allowed, whereas, his application for

cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent -

accused came to be rejected by the 8 th ACJM of Ahmedabad (Rural)

Court. It is true that, the Investigating Officer has not challenged

the said order passed by the learned 8 th ACJM of Ahmedabad

(Rural) Court, but, in the opinion of this Court, it would not

preclude the original complainant from preferring the present

application.

15. Thus, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Pradeep Ram(Supra) and MS.X (Supra), the

present application is hereby allowed. Consequently, the order of

the anticipatory bail which was passed in favour of the respondent

No.2 - accused by the learned 6 th ACJM Ahmedabad (Rural) Court,

in CRMA No.1052 of 2025 on 09.04.2025, cannot be sustained and

is quashed and set aside. The bail bond of respondent No.2 -

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8557/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

accused is hereby canceled. The Investigating Officer of the

concerned Police Station, who has conducted the investigation of

the offences, which came to be registered vide C.R.

No.11191006250079 of 2025, is directed to immediately arrest the

respondent No.2 - accused and submit him to custody, in

accordance with law.

16. However, it is made clear that, the respondent No.2 -

accused if moves an application under Section 483 of the BNSS,

2023 before the Competent Court, the same shall be considered on

it's own merits and in accordance with law. It is hereby also made

clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the case.

(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) KAJAL