IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 6431 of 2026 ================================================

CHATURBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BHAVANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================

Appearance:

APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(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. 11208002250894 of 2025, registered with Aji Dam Police Station, District: Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 34 and

120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

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

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that:

a) the applicant is not named in the FIR;

b) Parvatiben Chaturbhai Bhavani, original accused No. 4 as well as Kajalben Karamshibhai Parmar, original accused No. 5, in the FIR, have purchased the disputed property on the basis of the power of attorney have been granted anticipatory bail;

c) that, some of the subsequent purchasers have also been granted interim relief in the quashing petition/s filed by them;

d) that, the present applicant is not a beneficiary in the alleged transaction;

e) that, the entire case rests on documentary evidence and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required;

f) that, the alleged forged power of attorney is executed on 05.01.2008, whereas, the sale deeds have been entered into by the wife of the present applicant and one Kajalben, on 28.09.2008 and the FIR in question is lodged after a period of

17 years and for such inordinate delay on 08.08.2025 and despite the fact that his father was alive and was also residing at Rajkot, has not raised any grievance with regard to the alleged sale way back in the year 2008 and merely on the basis of the statement of son of Bhagvanbhai that the signature does not match with that of his father’s signature, alleged to have been put in the power of attorney, granted in favour of the one Israrkhan, the same would not prima facie attract the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC;

g) that, there are no allegations in the FIR with regard to the power of attorney having been forged by the present applicant;

h) that, merely because in the Charge-sheet, the applicant is shown as absconding, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed the alleged crime;

i) that, the applicant is 63 years old and is falsely implicated in the crime coupled with the fact that the complaint is lodged at the belated stage and that too, such delay has remained unexplained;

j) that, only because Kajalben, who is the beneficiary of the land, that the applicant who is the husband of original accused No. 4 – Parvatiben, it cannot be said that the applicant committed the crime as alleged;

k) that, the power of attorney is of 2008, whereas, Bhagvanjibhai has expired in the year 2013 and during his entire lifetime, none of the persons had come forward challenging the validity of the said power of attorney;

l) that, the applicant has not chosen to file any civil suit or exhausted any civil remedy and has directly filed present complaint to pressurize the applicant and subsequent purchasers and thus, having resorted to criminal machinery, which is nothing but an arm-twisting;

m) that, initially, the present complainant had lodged a complaint with regard to land grabbing on 09.07.2025 and that, the applicant had also cooperated and his statement also came to be recorded on 17.07.2025. However, after lodging of the said complai