IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 17231 of 2025 ==========================================================

SANGRAMBHAI VANABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

A N KADRI(7990) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 08/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent -State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11204045250162 of 2025 registered with Nadiad Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2)(a), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNSS.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that initially, the present applicant has preferred a regular bail application before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail before Chargesheet) No.10198 of 2024 but the same was withdrawn without entering into the merits and sought permission to withdraw it and subsequently, it was withdrawn on 19.05.2025. and subsequently, the investigating officer has filed the chargesheet, hence, successive regular bail application has been preferred. Further, it is submitted that as the investigation has already been over of the offence triable by the Magistrate and the present applicant – original accused is in judicial custody since long as he is arrested on 14.04.2025. The present applicant may be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that there is an active participation on part of the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. The present applicant – accused had along with other accused conspiracy and thereafter, they have impersonated one person as the original owner of the land in question and through him, also other documents have been created and on the basis of this forged document, the sale deed has been executed by the impersonated person. On the contrary, the owner of the land who is the grandfather of the complainant is already expired in the year 1971. Hence, Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the present applicant – accused along with other accused have impersonated one person as the original owner of the land in question and he has also created some other documents and executed the sale deed of the land in favour of the another accused – Mr. Arjun Bharvad. The present applicant as well as the other person had impersonated as the original owners of the land and got the document in question executed in his favour. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused;

b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant is permanent resident of Nadiad City and not likely to flee away;

c) That the Applicant is in custody since 14.04.2025;

d) Investigation is already over and the chargeshee