IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1084 of 2026 ================================================

NIKULBHAI CHOTABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================

Appearance:

MR RS SANJANWALA, SR ADVOCATE with MR.HARDIK BHARHMBHAT(3741) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MOHD. SHAHRUKH M SAIYAD (11014) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 17/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this 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. 11215002241015 of 2024, registered with Anand Town Police Station, District: Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. Outlined facts of the prosecution case is that the brother of the de facto complainant namely Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, now deceased, and present applicant namely Nikulbhai Chotabhai Patel in connivance with each other, created a forged Power of Attorney of the de facto complainant and her sister namely Pratibhaben and Tarulatabenm when the de facto complainant was staying in London, U.K. in the year 2000 and thereby, sold the land belonging to the de facto complainant to one Arvindbhai Bhikhabhai Patel. It is further the case of the de facto complainant that despite she asked for the said Power of Attorney, the same is not made available to her and thereby, caused the same to be disappeared. On the said facts, the de facto complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR.

4. Heard, Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. A. H. Kadri for learned advocate Mr. Mohd. Shahrukh M. Saiyad appearing for the de facto complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. 4.1 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit that the transaction in question was allegedly taken place in the year 2000 for which, the FIR, which is impugned herein, is registered only in the year 2024. Thus, there is extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR.

4.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit that the nature of dispute is manifestly civil in nature to which, a criminal colour has been given, inasmuch as, the dispute is with regard to the property.

4.3 It is submitted that in alleged crime, the real brother of the de facto complainant is arraigned as main accused being accused No. 1 namely Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, who, as per the allegations, created the forged power of attorney of the de facto complainant and sold the land owned by the de facto complainant using said power of attorney. He submitted that the brother of the de facto complainant - Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the original accused No. 1 is no more. Further, the so-called forged Power of Attorney is not produced so as to verify the claim of the de facto complainant and in the circumstances, the role attributed to the present applicant is presumptive only. It is submitted that in a suit filed for the cause, it is averred by the de facto complainant that all this has been done at the instance of her brother namely Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the original accused No. 1 only.

4.4 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further submit that even other the case is based on the documentary evidence and the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

4.5 Th