IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 26389 of 2025 ==========================================================

VIJAYBHAI BATUKBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HITESH B PRAJAPATI(13805) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 15/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Divyangna Jhala 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. 11210065251070/2025 registered with Utran Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the IPC

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation in the complaint being that the present applicant having induced the complainant to sign on a document, which according to the complainant, was to be a settlement deed for settlement of certain disputes between the complainant, the present applicant and some other third parties and whereas, the complainant and his younger brother having been made to sign an agreement to sale with regard to a different property than the property with regard to which the dispute was going on between the parties.

ii. The fact of the complainant not disputing his signature on the settlement deed dated 04.05.2023 and whereas, the complainant stating as regards the complainant having been duped to sign the deed in lieu of a settlement deed.

iii.The fact of the allegations prima facie not being believable since the complainant already being embroiled in a dispute with the present applicant, having signed a document without reading the same, may not be believable. iv. The fact of there being contradictions, which can be prima facie made out, inasmuch as the settlement deed / the document in dispute dated 04.05.2023 whereas, the present FIR being filed on 19.11.2025 and whereas, the present FIR refers to an earlier dispute with regard to which two FIRs have been registered against the present applicant as well as against the watchman of complainant, both dated 22.10.2023.

v. Thus, it would appear that the document in question pre- dates the earlier FIRs, yet, the allegation in the present FIR being that for settling the dispute in those FIRs, a settlement deed was to be entered into, under guise of which, the agreement to sale was signed by the applicant.

vi. While the charge-sheet has not yet been filed that is to state that the investigation is still continuing, yet, as noticed her