[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Arpan Keshavlal Madhukar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 May, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11540
of 2026
===============================================================
ARPAN KESHAVLAL MADHUKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR N V RAVAL(11267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARATKUMAR H OZA(12150) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR B OZA(11654) for the complainant
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 21/05/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar B. Oza is appearing for the
Complainant and is permitted to file is Vakalatnama before
the Registry. Registry to accept the same.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.N. V. Raval for the applicant,
learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent-State
and learned advocate Mr.Jigar B. Oza for the complainant.
3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on
behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Jigar
B. Oza waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the complainant.
4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'),
the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in
connection with the FIR bearing No.11191066260065 of
2026 registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad
(City) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),338,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
336(3) and 340(2) etc. of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of
allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this
stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant
will keep himself available during the course of investigation,
trial also and will not flee from justice.
6. Learned advocate Mr.N. V. Raval for the applicant submitted
that the person, who can say whether her documents were
forged by the present applicant or not is only Krupaben, who
is at present at New Zealand and the aforesaid facts could
not be disputed by the learned APP or learned advocate
Mr.Jigar Oza for the complainant. It was further stated that
the FIR is not registered by the person, who was sent abroad
and in whose favour, the Certificate of sponsorship was
obtained and therefore, the present FIR is registered only
with a view to take vengeance against the applicant. Learned
advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above
facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar Oza for the complainant has
opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence and submitted that after having
pocketed an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- from the complainant,
the applicant have not given back the aforesaid amount and
therefore, as the present complainant has been cheated, the
FIR is registered. He also states that the co-accused namely,
Mr.Amit Patel, has filed an affidavit before the learned Trial
Court that he shall return the amount to the present
complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the present
proceedings are not recovery proceedings and having heard
the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the
material placed on record and taking into consideration the
nature of allegations and gravity of offences, role attributed
to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at
this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
9. This Court has considered following aspects,
(i) the incident took place on 13.07.2024 whereas, the FIR
is registered almost three years thereafter, on
16.04.2026;
(ii) the complainant is not the one, who has been duped and
even as per the FIR, the first informant has stated that
it was his client, who is not before this Court and who is
residing at New Zealand at present;
(iii) the present applicant is ready and willing to co-operate
with the investigation and through advocate
Mr.N.V.Raval it was assured to the Court that the
present applicant shall make himself available before
Investigating Officer, as and when required.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, I am
inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
11. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
12. In the result, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with FIR No.11191066260065 of 2026
registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad (City)
on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) with one surety each of like amount on the
following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on
26.05.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or
yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change residence till the final
disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
concerned trial court and if having passport shall
deposit the same before the concerned trial court
within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an
application for remand if he considers it proper and just
and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026
undefined
13. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced
by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the
present order.
14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
PALAK
