IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2065 of 2025 ==========================================================

VATSALKUMAR RASIKBHAI SAKHIYA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR N.D. NANAVATI, Senior Advocate assisted by MR BHARATKUMAR H OZA(12150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR JIGAR B OZA(11654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/02/2025

ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11213042250008 of 2025 registered with Paddhari Police Station, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 384, 420, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 40 and 42 of the Money Lenders Act.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicants have nothing to do with the offence. The applicants are the purchaser of the property, and they purchased the property after paying the consideration amount. The seller has handed over possession of the property. The complainant himself has transferred the said property in the name of Applicant No.1 by executing the sale deed, and neither the complainant nor the other witnesses ever raised any objection regarding the said sale deed. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the applicant is involved in illegal activities and he used to extort money by using one or other pretext. In the pretext of sale deed, he has admitted the same modus and similar nature of other offences are also registered against the applicant. The applicant is friend of accused Nos.2 and 3 and in their favour executed the sale deed without paying further consideration though sale consideration came to be fixed at Rs.60 lacs. He further submitted that, though transaction was only for mortgage towards the security of the said amount, they have executed registered sale deed and considering the same modus, forged promissory note of Rs.4 crore. If he is released on anticipatory, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants are required. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of