ORAL ORDER

By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.1120100223020 of 2023 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad Zone.

2. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that one student named as Ravindra Solanki had approached the petitioner for seeking his advice of the petitioner. It is the case of the first informant that Solanki Ravindrakumar Gordhanbhai had placed the documents before the petitioner in the form of marksheet of 10th standard, marksheet of 12th standard, experience certificate of one employer for the purpose of seeking admission in foreign university in Canada. That, it is the case of first informant that on verifying these documents which were produced by Rajubhai Naginbhai Solanki alias Ravindrakumar, these documents are not genuine and they are created and that is how the offence under section 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is registered on the count that based on these fraudulent documents, Ravindrakumar Solanki had obtained admission in foreign university. With these sorts of allegations the complaint came to be filed against the present applicant as well as other accused person. Hence, the present FIR came to be filed.

3. Upon filing of the aforesaid complaint, the applicant preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned court below which came to be rejected and thus present application is filed.

4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective party at length.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.P K Jani for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is not directly or indirectly involved in the offence. He would submit that the complaint does not disclose any offence much less the offence as enumerated in the complaint against the present applicant so as to implicate him and connect him with the offence. He would further submit that FIR does not constitute the offenec under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC as none of the ingredients are prima facie satisfied. It was also submitted that no material worth naming offender is against accused / petitioner.

5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jani would submit that petitioner is engaged in the legal profession of obtaining VISA & running classes of IELTS. He would further submit that if any client of the petitioner is providing forged documents for obtaining VISA, it would not be duty of the petitioner to verify those documents.

5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jani would further submit that no allegations are levelled in the FIR against the petitioner alleging forgery of those documents and used the same as genuine before the authority. He would further submit that as per the FIR the person viz., Solanki Ravindrakumar Gordhanbhai who had forged and used the fake documents has not been arraigned as accused by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution is involved in selective method which shows false prosecution against the petitioner. He would further submit that Solanki Ravindrakumar had obtained loan from the SBI to stay abroad and since he has obtained loan from the SBI, it is presumed that SBI has examined all the documents including the alleged forged and fake mark-sheet; but the SBI has not found that it is fake mark-sheet which indicates hollowness in the prosecution case.

5.3 In support of his submissions, Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jani relied upon the following decisions:

1. Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab 2022 (4) WLC 458. 2. Narendra Bhikabhai Vyas vs. State of Gujarat 2020 AIJEL HC 242251.

3. Chauhan Shilpaben Pachanbhai vs. State of Gujarat

2022 JX (Guj) 883.

4. Nai Natwarlal Motiram vs. State of Gujarat 2019 JX (Guj) 647.

5.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Jani would further submit that since the offence of cheating and preparing false documents are not made out, the petitioner may be given the anticipatory bail. He w