Allowed

Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC18 Feb 2019CR.MA/784/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused who was allegedly involved in forging Power of Attorneys. The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the case relies on documents not in the applicant's possession. Bail was granted on a personal bond with specific conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure availability.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant ordered to be released on bail upon arrest subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 and specific conditions.

Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat — Cheating and Forgery | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 784 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHAUHAN

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR RS SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

¶10

MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 18/02/2019 ORAL ORDER

¶14

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I– 346 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, District Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 471, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

2. 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.

¶16

3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶19

and willing to abide by all the conditions
including imposition of conditions with regard
to powers of Investigating Agency to file an
application before the competent Court for his
remand. He further submits that upon filing of
such application by the Investigating Agency,
the right of applicant accused to oppose such
application on merits may be kept open. Learned
advocate, therefore, submitted that considering
the above facts, the applicant may be granted
anticipatory bail.

¶20

4.Learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.S. Sanjanwala for
the applicant further submits that the FIR is
filed for the alleged offences committed under
Sections 465, 466, 467, 471, 120B and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code wherein the applicant is shown
as one of the accused. It is submitted that the
applicant is an advocate. It is contended that
the only allegation against the applicant is
that he has identified the signatures on the
forged Power of Attorney, which was executed in
favour of the accused Rajesh Savaliya. Except
that, no other allegation is levelled against
the applicant.

¶21

5.On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Percy Kavina appearing for the original
complainant opposed this application and
contended that three documents are executed on
30.04.2004. He has referred all the three
alleged forged documents. One is registered at
Serial No.2094, which is a Sale Deed executed in

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶24

favour of Khimjibhai Premjibhai Moradiya and
Shashikant Vallabhbhai Joshi. It is submitted
that on the very same day, another two Power of
Attorneys were executed which are registered at
Serial Nos.2095 and 2096. The applicant has
identified the signatures on the said forged
Power of Attorneys. Therefore, there is active
role played by the applicant in the alleged
offence and in connivance with the main accused,
all the accused have committed alleged offences,
therefore, he may not be released on
anticipatory bail.

¶25

6. Learned Senior Advocate thereafter submitted that the another FIR is also registered against the applicant in January, 2019 and, therefore, looking to the antecedent, this application may not be entertained.

¶26

7.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent – State has also
opposed this application and contended that the
applicant has played active role and when there
is antecedent against the applicant, this
application may not be entertained.

¶27

8.Having heard the learned advocates for the
parties and perusing the material placed on
record and taking into consideration the facts
of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of
offence, role attributed to the accused, without
discussing the evidence in detail, at this
stage, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶28

Page 3 of 7

¶29

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶30

9.This Court has also considered the following
aspects:

¶31

(i)the only allegation against the applicant
is that he has identified the signatures on the
forged Power of Attorney executed in the year
2004;

¶32

(ii)co-accused i.e. Notary Arvindbhai Patel is
released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions
Court wherein it is mentioned that from the
Notary Register produced by the said accused, it
is revealed that Power of Attorney was executed
in the year 2004 and it is wrongly mentioned as
2005. It is the case of the applicant that he
was working as junior of the said Advocate
Notary;

¶33

(iii)the case of the prosecution depends
upon the documents. The applicant is not in
possession of the Power of Attorney and,
therefore, his custodial interrogation is not
required.

¶34

(iv)the applicant is not the beneficiary of the
transaction in question;

¶35

(v)so far as the antecedents of the applicant
is concerned, it is pointed out by the learned
Senior Advocate for the applicant that in the
another FIR, which is registered in January,
2019, the applicant is released on anticipatory

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶38

bail by the Sessions Court. However, at this
stage, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Percy Kavina
has pointed out that against the said order, an
application for cancellation of anticipatory
bail is filed before this Court, in which, this
Court has issued notice on 14.02.2019. However,
if the said order is carefully seen, it is
revealed that this Court has issued notice for
one of the reasons that no remand is sought by
the Investigating Agency to bring on record the
documents. However, the fact remains that till
date, his anticipatory bail is not cancelled.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise
discretion in favour of the present applicant.

¶39

10. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors . as reported at (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab , as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 .

¶40

11. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R.No.I–346 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, District Surat, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶43

amount on the following conditions:

¶44

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

¶45

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 25.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶46

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶47

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶48

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

¶49

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

¶50

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

¶51

12. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent

¶52

Page 6 of 7

¶53

R/CR.MA/784/2019 ORDER

¶54

occasions, as may be directed by the learned
Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat
the accused in the judicial custody for the
purpose of entertaining application of the
prosecution for police remand. This is, however,
without prejudice to the right of the accused to
seek stay against an order of remand, if,
ultimately, granted, and the power of the
learned Magistrate to consider such a request in
accordance with law. It is clarified that the
applicant, even if, remanded to the police
custody, upon completion of such period of
police remand, shall be set free immediately,
subject to other conditions of this anticipatory
bail order.

¶55

13. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶56

14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

¶57

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶58

piyush

¶59

Page 7 of 7

Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahommad Musaddik Ilyasbeg Mirza Vs State of Gujarat

Alpesh Dalsinghbhai Vasuniya Vs State of Gujarat

Rakeshbhai Maganbhai Pansuriya (Patel) Vs State of Gujarat

Sunny Janmahmad Premani Vs State of Gujarat

Jani Vimleshkumar Mahendrabhai Vs State of Gujarat

Bharvad Navghanbhai Kachrabhai Vs State of Gujarat