R/CR.MA/9088/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9088 of 2025 ========================================================== RATILAL GAURISHANKAR KOSHTI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 07/05/2025 ORAL ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191022210914 of 2021 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant is senior citizen and has no past antecedent. The applicant is Advocate – Notary by profession and is doing practice since 1981. Allegation against the applicant is that, he has handed over his Notary Register to accused No.1 and thereby, he has abetted the offence. Whatever allegation of forgery of document is concerned, it is against accused No.1 and 2, who have prepared forged documents. Applicant being Notary has rendered his service and given his register. Except this, no any allegation is levelled against the applicant. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, R/CR.MA/9088/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. [3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. He is named in FIR. The applicant was fully aware about that the documents are forged, however, he has given his Register for signature of accused Nos.1 and 2 and notarized the documents. Therefore, to unearth truth, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, application does not deserve any consideration. [4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects. (1) The applicant has no past antecedent. (2) Allegation against the applicant is that, being notary, the applicant has given notary to accused Nos.1 and 2 for their signatures and he notarized the document. Page 2 of 4 R/CR.MA/9088/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 (3) Whatever allegation of forgery of document is against accused Nos.1 and 2. (4) Applicant remained protected in quashing petition (CRMA No.12484/2021) by this Court since 2021 . (5) He is ready and willing to join investigation. (6) Considering bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 as well as law laid down in case of Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (II) GLH 491, application deserves consideration. [5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application. [6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191022210914 of 2021 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09.05.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant; (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 R/CR.MA/9088/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 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 her/his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail; (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.- [7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. [8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2025 14:48:42