R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 19406 of 2024 ========================================================== DAISHIK HARISHCHANDRA PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR IH SYED, SR. ADVOCATE with MR VISHRUT BHANDARI(11297) for the Applicant MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/02/2025 ORAL ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – 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 accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11199038240596 of 2024 registered with Nabipur Police Station, District Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 82(a), 82(b), 82(c) and 82(d) of the Registration Act. [2.0] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vishrut Bhandari for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and has been falsely enroped in the offence. Further, the applicant is the bonafide purchaser of the disputed property. As the disputed property R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 belonged to Waqf Board, Waqf Board issued public notice for public auction for getting the permission from the authority and pursuant to the public auction notice, present applicant participated in the proceeding and thereafter executed the registered sale deed. Hence, no role qua alleged forgery is attributed to the present applicant. Even if the allegation against the applicant and other co-accused is accepted without admitting then also the co-accused are released on bail and even similarly situated co-accused Mukesh Vanraj Jain is granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court and pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, present applicant was protected by way of interim relief by the coordinate Bench since October, 2024 and applicant has joined the investigation throughout and he has appeared before the authority on number of occasions and even otherwise if the presence of applicant is required for further investigation, upon instructions learned Senior Advocate states that applicant applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant at this stage is not necessary. Besides, 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 as well as learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the original complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that present applicant is the kingpin and his role is different than the co-accused who have been granted bail. Applicant is the mastermind and he had contacted one Iqbal Deraiya and facilitated him by providing financial aid of Rs.10 lakh to secure the permission from the office of Waqf Board and pursuant to the said fact, employee of Waqf Board has issued the forged permission letter R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 however, no such actual correspondence or any proceeding is available with the office of Waqf Board. As per the said communication dated 09.08.2024, if any resolution being passed by the authority, no such agenda item was placed for consideration to accord the sanction or permission for the alleged sale transaction. The said letter which is forged is dated 10.12.2014 and subsequently suppressed the entire facts and based on the said forged letter, entire transaction took place. All the accused hatched criminal conspiracy and then the sale deed got executed in favor of the present applicant. Neither the said forged letter nor the original registered sale deed is yet recovered and present applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application. [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. Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 (1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; (2) Allegation against the applicant is that by hatching the criminal conspiracy in the pretext of forged letter of Waqf Board’s permission, alleged sale deed came to be executed, which does exist however, no any proceeding for cancelation of said sale deed / transaction or for any other collateral proceeding being initiated by the Waqf Board or the government; (3) The role attributed to the present applicant is that he had facilitated in forgery however, the co-accused against whom offence of forgery is alleged have been released on bail and similarly situated accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4352/2024 and pursuant to the said order, the present applicant is also protected by the coordinate Bench since October, 2024 and thereafter, the applicant has joined the investigation and even otherwise applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in further investigation, if required; (4) Prosecution has failed to point out any circumstance for which custodial interrogation of applicant is required. [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. Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 [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 the FIR being C.R. No.11199038240596 of 2024 registered with Nabipur Police Station, District Bharuch, 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 23/02/2025 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 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 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 applicant; (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section R/CR.MA/19406/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 483(2) of the BNSS 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] It is made clear that this order shall not adversely affect civil proceeding, if any. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/02/2025 18:00:50