IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS)

NO. 25260 of 2025 ==========================================================

RUCHIT VASUBHAI PATEL & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Jay A. Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of the present application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 20.11.2025, more particularly, whereby the learned Sessions Court has rejected the application preferred by the applicants for deletion of Condition No.5 imposed in order dated 15.10.2024 by the learned Sessions Court, i.e., of depositing the passport with the learned Sessions Court while enlarging the present applicants on anticipatory bail. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record , it would, prima facie, appear that while the learned Sessions Court had been approached by the present applicants for keeping the said condition in abeyance, and whereas, it also appears that the condition has been kept in abeyance intermittently, and whereas the condition has been lastly kept in abeyance till the 31.12.2025, vide order dated

28.08.2025 (in case of applicant No.1).

4.1. It would also appear here that the applicants herein are son and father respectively and whereas the case of the applicants being that since they have set up a business out of the country, they are required to travel frequently, and whereas, if Condition No.5 is not deleted, then unnecessary harassment is taking place.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli appearing for the applicants would rely upon an interim order passed by the learned Co- ordinate Bench, whereby the learned Co-ordinate Bench had been pleased to stay the further investigation.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dagli would submit that considering this aspect, this Court may permanently delete the said condition.

6. On the other hand, the application is vehemently objected to by the learned APP, who would submit that order dated 27.11.2024 by learned Co-ordinate Bench is an interim order and whereas it is not the case that based upon the interim order, the FIR itself has been quashed and set aside.

6.1. Learned APP would submit that as and when the quashing petition is finally decided, it is always open to the concerned Court to take an appropriate view, which may or may not be in consonance with the view taken by the learned Co-ordinate Bench at the interim stage.

6.2. Learned APP would submit that while keeping the condition in abeyance for a few months may not be a difficult proposition, but allowing the present applicants, there passport would be the end of investigation, in sofar as the applicants are concerned, since the applicants would not be available as and when required.

6.3. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, while it would appear to this Court that the applicants, would be entitled for retaining the passport for a few months, Condition No.5 could not be deleted permanently since this Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned APP Mr.Mehta that the same would be the end of investigation, as far as the applicants are concerned. To this Court, it would appear that while interim order dated 27.11.2024 by learned Co- ordinate Bench, would not mean that the learned Co-ordinate Bench has quashed and set aside the FIR, rather it would appear that having considered the issu