Anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged offense is predominantly civil, there is significant reporting delay without valid justification, and the prosecution fails to demonstrate that custodial interrogation is strictly necessary for investigative purposes.

ORAL ORDER

1. As all these matters arise out of the common FIR, the same are heard together and being decided by this common order.

2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive.

3. By these applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11189003251588 of 2025, registered with Morbi City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District: Morbi for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114, 120 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Filtered details of the prosecution case are that original accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the father and son respectively, by hatching conspiracy, winning trust of the de facto complainant, got the sale deed executed of the land belonging to the de facto complainant allegedly when the de facto complainant was under influence of alcohol and thereafter, got credited the sale consideration without knowledge of the de facto complainant in his bank account and in connivance with the bank Manager and bank employee, the co-accused got the cheque book of the de facto complainant and allegedly by forging signature of the de facto complainant, used his bank account and the original accused No. 3 got transferred Rs.1,14,00,000/- from his account. Thus, on these facts, FIR in question came to be registered.

5. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.

5.1 The learned advocates for the respective applicants have submitted that;

a) the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the crime in question;

b) that, for the transaction of 2022, substantive FIR is lodged in the year 2025 only;

c) that, initially the complainant had filed a complaint and after due inquiry and investigation, the same came to be closed vide Police Report dated 19.06.2023 having found no substance in the same;

d) that, the complainant’s version suffers from material contradictions and deliberate suppression inasmuch as, the complainant has not stated that in FIR that allegedly, in an inebriated condition, he was first taken to Advocate’s office and then, to the Sub-registrar’s office, which was his case in the representation filed by him on 15.04.2025 before the Investigation Officer (IO);

e) the original accused No. 1 is enlarged on regular bail;

f) the original accused No. 2, who is son of original accused No. 1 is granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court;

g) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 26433 of 2025 – original accused No. 3 is concerned, it is stated that FSL Report dated 06.08.2025 does not disclose commission of any offence by the applicant inasmuch as sample signatures do not match with the disputed signatures;

h) so far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3962 of 2026 is concerned, it is submitted that the applicant, who is original accused No. 4, was working as a Bank Manager at the relevant time and has no role in the crime in question and that, no any overt act committed in the alleged crime inasmuch as, the cheque books were issued by the Accountant of the bank. Further, it is the Accountant only who verifies the signature and the applicant, as a Branch Manager has to endorse the RTGS Form. It is further stated that the applicant is not, in any way, beneficiary of the disputed transaction;

i) so far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3715 of 2026 is concerned, it is stated that applicant, who is original accused No. 5, is a Hotel Staff in the Hotel owned by the or