[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Ahmedhusen Mirsabmiya Saiyad vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2026

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/15736/2023                                    CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                                                           Reserved On   : 19/02/2026
                                                                           Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                                                 15736 of 2023


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

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

                                     Approved for Reporting                     Yes            No

                                                                                               

========================================================== AHMEDHUSEN MIRSABMIYA SAIYAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

MR TEJAS BAROT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS RHEA

MR NISHIT H SHAH(10712) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6 MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 MR. D. N. VORA(14575) for the Respondent(s) No. 7,8,9 MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

CAV ORDER

1. The applicant herein, who is the original

complainant of the offence, which came to be registered

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

against 8 accused persons by Nandasan Police Station,

Mehsana vide FIR being C.R. No. 11206050230260 of

2023 for the offence committed under Sections 395, 365,

452, 384, 344, 295A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120B of IPC,

1860 as well as Section 135 of the G.P. Act, 1951 has

preferred the present application under section 439(2)

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 praying for cancellaton of anticipatory bail of the

respondent nos. 2 to 9, which came to be granted by the

5th Additional Sessions Judge of Mehsana, vide order

passed on 09.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application

No.1140 of 2023.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot

assisted by Ms. Rhea Choksi, learned advocate for the

applicant, who has reiterated the averments of the

application. Mr. Barot has taken the court through the

entire gamut of evidence, which has been annexed along

with the application. Mr. Barot has drawn the attention

of the court towards the affidavit of the Investigation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

Officer, which was submitted at the time of the hearing of

the anticipatory bail application preferred by the accused

persons before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge,

Mehsana. Mr. Barot has also submitted that, one

Shreyansh Ashokbhai Gangani, who was also allegedly

kept under forceful detention just like the original

complainant, had narrated the ordeal in his affidavit

dated 26.08.2023. It is pertinent to observe at this

juncture that, the typed month and year in the said

affidavit is August 2021, and thereafter, a stamp

mentioning the date 26.08.2023 has been affixed.

2.1 Mr. Barot has further submitted that, the De-

Addiction Center, which was known by the name 'True

Change Trust' (for short 'TCT'), which was situated at

Bardoli, did not follow the guidelines of the NHRC. Mr.

Barot, has forcefully submitted that, whatever the

accused did with the applicant under the guise of de-

addiction was inhuman and illegal. The learned Sessions

Court should not have exercised discretion in favour of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

the accused before filing of charge-sheet, and that too, by

granting them anticipatory bail. The de-addiction and

rehabilitation center acted as detention center in view of

the overwhelming evidence against the accused. They

did not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The

order of the learned Sessions Court is not in conformity

with the established principles of law governing

anticipatory bail. Thus, Mr. Barot has urged the court to

allow the application and quash and set aside the order

passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge,

Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No.1140 of 2023

on 09.08.2023 granting anticipatory bail to the accused

persons.

2.2 Mr. Barot in support of his oral submissions has

relied upon the following judgements:

(I) M. Syed Ali Fathima vs. State, Rep. by The

Secretary to Government, Home Department &

Others rendered by the Madras High Court in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

W.P. No. 5058 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015

on 17.03.2023;

(II) Ankur Kumar and Another vs. State of U.P.

& 4 others rendered by the Allahabad High

of 2020 on 22.10.2020.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch on behalf

of learned advocates Mr. Satyam Y. Chhaya, Mr. Nishit H.

Shah and Mr. D.N. Vora for the respondents nos. 2 to 9 -

accused. Mr. Buch has at the outset submitted that, the

FIR came to be registered against 3 inmates, 4 staff

members and one trustee of the said TCT. Mr. Buch has

questioned the bonafides of the original complainant,

whereby, it was submitted that, the rehabilitation center

did not follow the NHRC guidelines and the inmates were

inhumanly tortured by submitting that, except the

present complaint, no other complaints have been

registered or submitted against the said rehabilitation

and de-addiction center, which was being run by the TCT.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

According to Mr. Buch, there are 22 such centers

functioning in Gujarat as of now. The entire premises of

the TCT at Bardoli is covered by CCTV cameras and is

connected to Hik-Connect App through which the

movements of the inmates as well as the ambience inside

the premises could be watched. Mr. Buch has submitted

that, the original complainant was never kept in

confinement. The de-addiction centers function under the

'Alcoholic Anonymous' protocols, which is a 12 steps

programme, which includes involuntary or coerce

treatments of the victims. Mr. Buch has further

submitted that, the original complainant was taken to the

de-addiction and rehabilitation center upon the insistence

and instructions of his wife, and it was his wife, who had

given an undertaking and had also signed the relevant

documents of the said institution, for the purpose of her

husband's treatment.

3.1 According to Mr. Buch the original complainant

wanted to extort money from the TCT. All the offences,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

except the offence under Section 395 of IPC, carry

punishment upto 7 years and considering the definition of

Section 390 of the IPC, Section 395 of the IPC was not

applicable, hence the learned Sessions Judge had rightly

exercised discretion in favour of the respondents -

accused and had granted them anticipatory bail.

3.2 Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the respondents -

accused has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply of one

Gaurangkumar S Vansia, who is respondent no. 7 -

accused no. 6, wherein, in paragraph no. 4 it has been

mentioned thus:

"4. Bare perusal of above-referred documents, it would reveal that the Trust is registered under the provision of law and the activity of rehabilitation has been carried out in furtherance to aim and object of the Trust at Bardoli. So far, there has been no complaint on at all. It is clear from the record that in case of the applicant, his wife Sehnazbanu had filled up admission / enrolment form 20.6.2023. This fact is suppressed. This would indicate that the story of abduction of the applicant on that day would be totally falsified."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

3.3 Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the respondents -

accused has further submitted that, the TCT does not

have anything personal against the original complainant

and this court should not interfere with the order passed

by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge of Mehsana,

which is factually and legally correct. Thus, Mr. Buch

has submitted that, the present application be dismissed.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the

respondent no. 1 - State, who has drawn the attention of

the court towards the Investigation Officer's affidavit.

According to Ms. Jhaveri, the respondent nos. 2 to 9 -

accused nos. 1 to 8 had impersonated as the officials of

the Crime Branch, when they had gone to the original

complainant's house, and thereafter, had abducted him

and eventually had placed him in the detention center,

which functioned as so-called rehabilitation and de-

addiction center. The original complainant was kept in

captivity for 27 days, hence this application should be

allowed and the anticipatory bail granted to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

respondents nos. 2 to 9 - accused nos. 1 to 8 be cancelled.

Ms. Jhaveri has also submitted that, the trial before the

learned Sessions Court at Mehsana in the present case be

expedited.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Barot has

submitted that, the learned Sessions Court by completely

and outrightly negating the incriminating material

against the respondents accused, had granted

anticipatory bail to them, which requires interferes from

them. There are no exaggerated versions in the present

application on part of the original complainant. Mr. Barot

has once again vehemently submitted that, rehabilitation

and de-addiction centers do not function in the manner in

which the TCT center was functioning.

6. The FIR in question came to be lodged by one

Ahmedhusen Mirsabmiya Saiyad before the Nandasan

Police Station, Mehsana on 27.03.2023 against

respondents - accused nos. 2 to 9. Briefly stated, it is the

case of the original complainant that, he was at his house

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

on 20.06.2023, when at around 05.30 am, some unknown

people had come and had introduced themselves as

officers from the Crime Branch, and thereafter, had

forcibly taken him in an Innova Car, which was parked

outside. It is further mentioned that, he was beaten

inside the car and they had snatched away Rs.5,000/-

from his pocket. He was informed that, he was being

taken to TCT de-addiction center, and accordingly, he

was lodged at the said center.

6.1 The original complainant has mentioned his ordeal

during his stay at the said TCT de-addiction center and

that, on 17.07.2023, his brother had come to take him

away. However, his brother was asked to deposit

Rs.1,05,000/- and that, his was the first case where he

was being allowed to accompany his family before

expiration of 3 months. The original complainant had

transferred the said amount into the account of

respondent no. 3 accused Bharat Patel, after which, he

was permitted to go home. The original complainant had

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

stated that, in the TCT de-addiction center, he was forced

to drink a random concoction which had worsened his

health; he was given electric shocks on his genitals and

was inflicted severe blows on his hands, legs and

abdomen; he was choked and slapped. It is further stated

that, because of the severe blows, he was unable to bear

the pain, and after his condition having worsened, he was

taken to Vasu Hospital at Bardoli, where no treatment

was administered. He was called a drug addict at the

center and the respondents - accused used to torture him

to admit that, he had consumed drugs, and that he was an

addict. He was also brutally abused and was made to sit

in a chicken like position on a brick facing wall, he was

submitted to most unhygienic conditions and when his

brother had come to take him back, his signature and

thumb impressions were taken on blank papers.

7. On perusing the order passed by the learned 5 th

Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc.

Application No.1140 of 2023 enlarging the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

nos. 2 to 9 - accused on anticipatory bail, the learned

Judge had observed in his order that, it was the original

complainant's wife, who had applied to the said TCT de-

addiction center for the applicant's admission/enrollment

at the said center and that, the respondent nos. 2 to 9 -

accused had taken away the original complainant to TCT

de-addiction center, upon instructions from his wife.

Learned Sessions Judge had also observed in his order

that, a query was posed by the court to the learned

advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 9 - accused as to

how the de-addiction center came to know that, the

original complainant was indulging in substance abuse, to

which, before the learned advocate could reply, the

Investigation Officer had informed the court that, he had

recorded the statements of the original complainant's

wife, who had stated that, the original complainant being

addicted to drugs, for the purpose of his treatment, she

had located the TCT de-addiction center and had

contacted them. Learned Sessions Judge had clearly

noted in his order that, the Investigation Officer was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

unable to submit any evidence, which would prima facie

establish that, the respondents - accused had beaten the

original complainant or had committed loot.

8. The Investigation Officer had placed on record his

affidavit before the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in

Criminal Misc. Application No.1140 of 2023, wherein, he

had mentioned many facts as regards the FIR, that was

filed by the original complainant, and the consequent

investigation that was carried out by him. The

Investigation Officer in paragraph no. 22 had stated that,

during the course of his investigation, it was revealed

that, the original complainant had released his property

in favour of his younger brother Anees, which had hurt

his wife and she being infuriated by such action of the

original complainant, had sent the original complainant to

the TCT de-addiction center, without his willingness or

consent. The respondents - accused have annexed the

forms, which were filled up by his wife Shehnaz

requesting his enrollment at the said center for de-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

addiction. It was Shehnaz, who had also given an

undertaking as regards the original complainant's stay at

the said de-addiction center. It was Shehnaz, who had

also signed a declaration of a therapy contract at the said

trust. The discharge form was signed by the original

complainant's brother, whereupon, the original

complainant had also put his thumb mark, wherein, it was

mentioned that the original complainant was in a good

state of mind and physically fit, and did not bear any

injury marks on his body, and that the original

complainant's brother had no complaints and issues

against the TCT and the staff of the said center.

9. The respondent nos. 2 to 9 - accused nos. 1 to 8

have also placed on record the photographs of the

ambience of the premises of the trust. On perusing the

same, it does not appear that, the applicant herein, was

miserably treated and physically and mentally abused.

10. It is true that, the respondents accused may have

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

introduced themselves as officers from the Crime Branch,

however, by saying so, they had only coerced the original

complainant so as to take him to the de-addiction center.

It is not the case of the prosecution that, the original

complainant was either kidnapped or forcibly taken away

from his house by the respondents - accused to the de-

addiction center, rather, from the investigation papers

produced by either sides, and more particularly, the

affidavit of the Investigation Officer filed before the

concerned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc.

Application No.1140 of 2023, it was the wife of the

original complainant, who had sent him to the said de-

addiction center. The statement of Shehnaz, the wife of

the original complainant has been recorded by the

Investigation Officer, wherein, she had clearly and

unequivocally submitted that, it was she, who had applied

to the de-addiction center TCT at Bardoli, for the

treatment of her husband i.e. the original complainant, as

he was addicted to drugs.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

10.1 If this be the case, then, the only allegation that

would remain against the respondent nos. 2 to 9 -

accused nos. 1 to 8 would be about ill-treating the

original complainant by them, who were associated with

the said TCT de-addiction center, for which, the original

complainant is required to approach the concerned

authority of the concerned district and seek redressal of

his grievances.

11. This court is baffled about the fact that, though it

was the wife of the original complainant, who had sent

the original complainant to the TCT de-addiction center,

there is not a whisper by him in the entire FIR, as regards

the said fact. Also, if the respondents accused are alleged

to have committed the offence against the original

complainant, his wife was the main perpetrator of the

crime, because, once again at the cost of repetition, and

also having been revealed during the investigation that, it

was she, who had approached the TCT de-addiction

center and not otherwise. There does not appear to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

any iota of evidence that, the respondents - accused of

their own accord had come to the original complainant's

house, and had kidnapped him, and thereafter, had

wrongfully confined him at the trust premises at Bardoli

and only after his brother being forced to pay the amount

of Rs.1,05,000/-, he was permitted to go home. Learned

advocate Mr. Buch for the respondents accused has

submitted that, the original complainant wanted to

recover the amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, which was paid by

his brother to the de-addiction center, and as such, he

had lodged the false FIR after one week after coming

home. It would be fruitful to observe that the said FIR

does not mention the reasons of delay.

12. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Barot has questioned

the functioning of the TCT de-addiction center, however,

in the opinion of this court, this is not the forum to raise

such a grievance.

13. The affidavit of the other inmate Shreyansh

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

Ashokbhai Gangani, upon which learned Senior Advocate

Mr. Barot has relied, in support of his application, has

stated about the ill-treatment, which was meted out to

him in the said de-addiction center. This witness, in his

affidavit, amongst other allegations against the TCT de-

addiction center had stated that, people who had trouble

with relatives and family members pertaining to property

or other finances or were facing other familial disputes or

people who were in heavy debt or were fleeing from the

law, were sent to this rehabilitation center, and were only

allowed to leave, when either the debt was settled,

property was given to the family member with whom the

dispute was going on, or the demand of money was

fulfilled by the person stuck in the said rehab center.

However, it is not the case of the prosecution that, while

the original complainant was physically and mentally

harassed at the said de-addiction center, unable to bear

the said humiliation and ordeal, he had given the property

to his wife.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

14. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Barot, while relying

upon the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case

of M. Syed Ali Fathima (supra) has drawn the attention

of this court towards the observation of the said High

Court in paragraph no. 8, which reads as under:

"8.Such rehabilitation or de-addiction centres cannot be run by any individuals without obtaining a proper permission and license from the competent authorities. In this regard, the social welfare officer is bound to initiate appropriate action. Periodical inspection of such institutions are essential in order to safeguard the public interest. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the centre has obtained license from the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, and therefore, its Director is duty bound to conduct inspection periodically in order to find out the administrative affairs of the centres."

15. The original complainant's grievance against the

respondents accused is about they having impersonated

as police personnel, and thereafter, having kidnapped

him and having taken him to TCT, where he was confined

for 27 days and being severely physically and mentally

abused by them. In the light of the aforesaid observation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/15736/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026

undefined

of the Madras High Court, the original complainant has to

seek redressal of his grievance from the concerned

authority, who is administratively the supervising