ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the respondent – State.

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. 11204067250399 of 2025, registered with Sevaliya Police Station, district: Kheda, for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The facts in nutshell are that the FIR is lodged by the complainant alleging that he is the owner of agricultural land in question situated at village Vanghroli. That about 17.09.2025, the complainant came to know through a third person that a sale entry had been mutated in respect of his land and it was found that sale deed bearing document No.830/2025 dated 16.09.2025 was executed at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Galteshwar. That, the said sale deed reflects the names of the purchasers as Jagdishbhai Amrutbhai Patel and Pankajkumar Ratilal Patel, and shows the complainant as a seller for a consideration of Rs.27,67,200/-. That complainant has never executed any such sale deed, that the photograph shown as that of the seller is not his, and that forged signatures have been affixed in his name, and false witnesses are shown in the document.

3.1. Pursuant to aforesaid FIR, the applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.77 of 2026, which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. Hence, the present application.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Nishith P. Acharya for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent, wrongly arraigned as accused by the complainant. That, in absence of direct evidence, no custodial interrogation is required. Learned advocate would further submit that name of the present applicant has surfaces based on the statement of the co-accused, and such cannot be relied in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh, reported in (2025) 5 Supreme 641

4.1. Learned advocate would further submit that even otherwise, it is an admitted position that the FIR itself alleges that “unknown persons” have prepared the alleged forged document. That, complainant does not claim that the applicant personally impersonated him, forged signature, or presented himself before the Sub-Registrar office, hence, in absence of direct evidence, merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the alleged crime. It would further submit that unless and until the document is declared void by the competent civil court after full-fledged trial, a mere allegation of forgery would not justify the arrest of the present applicant.

4.2. He would also submit that the prosecution has failed to point out as to what recovery or discovery or seizure is required from the present applicant. The documents which are alleged to have been forged are already in custody of investigating agency, hence, custodial interrogation serves no useful purpose. He would further submit that the main accused Amrutbhai who has impersonated Rameshbhai has been enlarged on regular bail. He would lastly submit that there are no past antecedent, hence, argued to allow the present application.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent - State would vehemently oppose the present anticipatory bail application and submit that though the cause title reflects the name of the applicant as farmer, the present applicant is first an advocate and he is master mind beyond the entire fraud. He would further submit that the present applicant has prepared forged documents, and that, similar type of offence committed and has registered before