IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6617 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6624 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6627 of 2026 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6802 of 2026 ==========================================================

MAHESH PREMJIBHAI MOTIVARAS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MONARCH K PANDYA(11437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR JAGDISH SATAPARA for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 30/03/2026

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. 11186004260060 of 2026, registered with Prabhas Patan Police Station, District: Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are that the de facto complainant is having three different companies where the accused were working. The original accused No. 1 was working as an Accountant whereas, the other accused were working as Workers in the said companies. As per the allegations in the FIR, the accused persons, in connivance with each other, created false sales bills of fake companies showing sale to the companies of the de facto complainant during the period from 2019 to 2021 and also created false and forged documents and opened bank account and thereby, committing criminal breach of trust and forgery, embezzled approximately Rs.7,13,13,025/-. Thus, on the said facts, FIR in question came to be registered.

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

5.1 The learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that;

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

b) that, for the transactions of 2019 to 2021, FIR is lodged belatedly, in the year 2026 only;

c) that, the applicants - original accused Nos. 5, 3, 6, and 4 respectively, were not working in the companies of the de facto complainant and it is original accused Nos. 2, 4 and 6, who were working under original accused No. 1 in the companies. It is stated that ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 409 ff the IPC are not attracted inasmuch as the present applicants were never entrusted any property and the property in question was entrusted to the original accused No. 1 only;

d) that, on the contrary, the de facto complainant pressurized and threatened the original accused No. 1 and took away his two immovable properties and sale deeds were executed to settle the dispute;

e) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6624 of 2026, who is accused No. 3 is concerned, it is stated that the de facto complainant also pressurized and threatened him and took away his three immovable properties by executing sale deeds to settle the dispute;

f) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6627 of 2026, who is accused No. 6 is concerned, the de facto complainant also pressurized and threatened him and took away his two immovable properties by executing sale deeds to settle the dispute;

g) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6802 of 2026, who is accused No. 4 is concerned, the de facto complainant also pressurized and threatened him and took away his two immovable properties and executed sale deeds to settle the dispute;

h) the de facto complainant has suppressed the material fact of executing sale deeds of the properties of the applicants by coercion to settle