##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026

0.6969491730393204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11540

of 2026

===============================================================

ARPAN KESHAVLAL MADHUKAR

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

===============================================================

Appearance:

MR N V RAVAL(11267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR BHARATKUMAR H OZA(12150) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR JIGAR B OZA(11654) for the complainant

MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

===============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

Date : 21/05/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar B. Oza is appearing for the

Complainant and is permitted to file is Vakalatnama before

the Registry. Registry to accept the same.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.N. V. Raval for the applicant,

learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent-State

and learned advocate Mr.Jigar B. Oza for the complainant.

3. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on

behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Jigar

B. Oza waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of

the complainant.

4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’),

the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in

connection with the FIR bearing No.11191066260065 of

2026 registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad

(City) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),338,

Page 1 of 5

Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu May 21 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 04 10:21:08 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026

0.6969491730393204

336(3) and 340(2) etc. of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of

allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this

stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant

will keep himself available during the course of investigation,

trial also and will not flee from justice.

6. Learned advocate Mr.N. V. Raval for the applicant submitted

that the person, who can say whether her documents were

forged by the present applicant or not is only Krupaben, who

is at present at New Zealand and the aforesaid facts could

not be disputed by the learned APP or learned advocate

Mr.Jigar Oza for the complainant. It was further stated that

the FIR is not registered by the person, who was sent abroad

and in whose favour, the Certificate of sponsorship was

obtained and therefore, the present FIR is registered only

with a view to take vengeance against the applicant. Learned

advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above

facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar Oza for the complainant has

opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence and submitted that after having

pocketed an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- from the complainant,

the applicant have not given back the aforesaid amount and

therefore, as the present complainant has been cheated, the

FIR is registered. He also states that the co-accused namely,

Mr.Amit Patel, has filed an affidavit before the learned Trial

Court that he shall return the amount to the present

complainant.

Page 2 of 5

Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Thu May 21 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 04 10:21:08 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/11540/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/05/2026

0.6969491730393204

8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the present

proceedings are not recovery proceedings and having heard

the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the

material placed on record and taking into consideration the

nature of allegations and gravity of offences, role attributed

to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at

this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

applicant.

9. This Court has considered