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. 11210004260661 of 2026, registered with Amroli Police Station, District: Surat, for the offence punishable under Sections 40, 42(a), 42(d) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 and Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

3. The story of the complainant is that the impugned FIR had been lodged by one Mrs. Taraben Mohanbhai Solanki, who happens to be a widowed wife of one Mr. Mohanbhai Solanki. That allegedly, the husband of the original complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 4.5% interest from the present applicant and in return the present applicant had executed a sale deed of the house of the original complainant in his favour towards security. It is further alleged that the present applicant had also transferred an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in the bank account of husband of the original complainant to show a fake transaction of the consideration amount of the sale deed which allegedly came to be withdrawn and taken back by the present applicant. It is alleged that the present applicant had taken Rs.45,00,000/- in case from the original complainant and her deceased husband towards interest and charges, however, he is demanding further amount from the original complainant. It was alleged that the present applicant had also instituted a Civil Suit for the possession of the said house from the original complainant which resulted into the registration of impugned FIR.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the false and wrongful FIR lodged at Amroli Police Station, Surat, the present applicant had preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2260 of 2026 before the learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge at Surat. The same came to be rejected by the order dated 08.04.2026. Hence, the present application.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the alleged incident had taken place between 01.01.2016 to 19.03.2026 and the FIR filed on 19.03.2026, however, it clearly transpires that the FIR had been lodged after 10 years from the date of incident and there is no valid justification for the same had been provided by the original complainant in the column No.8 of the impugned FIR, which is blank.

5.1. Learned advocate would further submit that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the said offence by the original complainant as the original complainant was not able to find any place for her residence after the sale of the said property and the said original complainant was given the said house on rent. He would further submit that as the original complainant was not vacated the said premises, pursuant to which, the present applicant had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.639 of 2023 before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

5.2. He would further submitted that the present applicant was in a financial crunch had borrowed a loan from the State Bank of India worth Rs.27,00,000/- and since he was unabled to repay the EMIs of the said loan, the bank had taken legal action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed extortion by lending money to the present complainant, more particularly, when the sale deed has been entered into by the applicant with the complainant and her husband, and also the Regular Civil Suit for vacating the premises has been filed by the present applicant.

5.3. He would also submit that prior to the lodging of the FIR, the applicant has also remained present and given his statement before the concerned inve