R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 22063 of 2025 ========================================================== BHAGVANJI KHIMJIBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR DHARMESH R PATEL(5592) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 15/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh Patel appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.K.M.Antani appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210003250834/2025 registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel on behalf of the applicant would submit that as per the FIR, the applicant had played a role as being guarantor in the fraudulent sale deed and whereas, learned advocate would submit that even in the affidavit before the learned Trial Court, the Investigating Officer has stated as much. 4.1. Learned advocate would submit that the learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application for regular bail preferred by the applicant, has considered that the role of the accused was as being a witness in the registered sale deed for the plot in question in favour of the accused no.1. 4.2. Learned advocate would submit that the learned Trial Court has enlarged two persons i.e. accused nos.4 and 5 of the FIR against whom the allegation was of being a witness to the registered sale deed and whereas, learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court specifically to the finding by the learned Trial Court insofar as accused no.4 – Darshan as well as insofar as accused no.5 – Nilesh, in both orders, the learned Trial Court noting that the role against the said R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 applicants being that of a witness in the fraudulent sale deed. Learned advocate would further submit that as such, there are no antecedents against the present applicant either of the like nature or of any other offence. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Antani appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail contending that the investigation is ongoing and whereas, the presence of the applicant would be necessary. 6. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, perused the record including the FIR as well as affidavit of the Investigating Officer, the order passed by the learned Trial Court in case of the applicant as well as in case of the co-accused. Following aspects are considered:- i. The fact that as per the FIR and the affidavit of the I.O., R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 the applicant is named as a guarantor to the transaction. ii. The learned Trial Court had rejected the application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant was a witness to the registered sale deed. iii. The learned Trial Court having enlarged two other co- accused on anticipatory bail and whereas, learned Trial Court noting in the orders that the said co-accused were cited as witness to the registered sale deed. iv. That except for the applicant being named as guarantor, there is no other role attributed to the applicant. v. The fact that there are no other antecedents against the applicant for the offence of the like nature. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made in the First R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No.11210003250834/2025 with Adajan Police Station, District:- Surat, on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [f] shall mark his presence once a week till the charge- sheet is filed and once a month for a period of six months thereafter before the concerned police station. [g] shall not leave Surat City, till the charge-sheet is filed, without permission of the I.O. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 12. At the stage of trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released R/CR.MA/22063/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025 on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/10/2025 18:45:59