NIKULBHAI CHOTABHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/1084/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 1084 of 2026

================================================
              NIKULBHAI CHOTABHAI PATEL
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR RS SANJANWALA, SR ADVOCATE with MR.HARDIK
BHARHMBHAT(3741) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MOHD. SHAHRUKH M SAIYAD (11014) for the
Respondent(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. 11215002241015 of 2024, registered
with Anand Town Police Station, District: Anand for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian

                               Page 1 of 10
      R/CR.MA/1084/2026                         ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


3.      Outlined facts of the prosecution case is that the brother of
the de facto complainant namely Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel,
now deceased, and present applicant namely Nikulbhai Chotabhai
Patel in connivance with each other, created a forged Power of
Attorney of the de facto complainant and her sister namely
Pratibhaben and Tarulatabenm when the de facto complainant was
staying in London, U.K. in the year 2000 and thereby, sold the land
belonging to the de facto complainant to one Arvindbhai
Bhikhabhai Patel. It is further the case of the de facto complainant
that despite she asked for the said Power of Attorney, the same is
not made available to her and thereby, caused the same to be
disappeared. On the said facts, the de facto complainant lodged the
aforesaid FIR.


4.      Heard, Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, learned senior advocate,
assisted by Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the applicant, learned
advocate Mr. A. H. Kadri for learned advocate Mr. Mohd.
Shahrukh M. Saiyad appearing for the de facto complainant as well
as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.


4.1     The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit
that the transaction in question was allegedly taken place in the
year 2000 for which, the FIR, which is impugned herein, is
registered only in the year 2024. Thus, there is extra ordinary


                               Page 2 of 10
      R/CR.MA/1084/2026                            ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




delay in lodging the FIR.


4.2     The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit
that the nature of dispute is manifestly civil in nature to which, a
criminal colour has been given, inasmuch as, the dispute is with
regard to the property.


4.3     It is submitted that in alleged crime, the real brother of the de
facto complainant is arraigned as main accused being accused No.
1 namely Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, who, as per the
allegations, created the forged power of attorney of the de facto
complainant and sold the land owned by the de facto complainant
using said power of attorney. He submitted that the brother of the
de facto complainant - Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the original
accused No. 1 is no more. Further, the so-called forged Power of
Attorney is not produced so as to verify the claim of the de facto
complainant and in the circumstances, the role attributed to the
present applicant is presumptive only. It is submitted that in a suit
filed for the cause, it is averred by the de facto complainant that all
this has been done at the instance of her brother namely
Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the original accused No. 1 only.


4.4     The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further
submit that even other the case is based on the documentary
evidence and the nature of allegations are such that custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted


                                 Page 3 of 10
      R/CR.MA/1084/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.


4.5     The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the
applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is
urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the
anticipatory bail to the applicant.


4.6     However, the learned senior advocate for the applicant has
fairly submitted that the quashing petition filed by the present
applicant is rejected by the coordinate Bench, however, he submits
that the same may not be a ground for non-considering the present
application.


5.      Ex adverso, the learned advocate for the de facto complainant
while vehemently opposing this application for anticipatory bail,
submitted that it may be a dispute relating to property, but there is
a touch of criminality in it, inasmuch as, the present applicant, in
connivance with the main accused, who is the real brother of the de
facto complainant, has forged the power of attorney and sold the
land belonging to the de facto complainant to the third party.


5.1     It is submitted that the present applicant is also charged
under Section 201 of the IPC inasmuch as the so-called forged
power of attorney used in selling the land of the de facto


                                Page 4 of 10
      R/CR.MA/1084/2026                             ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




complainant is not produced and made to disappear with a view
to hide the crime.


5.2     The learned advocate for the de facto complainant would
further submit that it may be a transaction of 2000 but the Court
may not disregard the fact that the quashing petition filed by the
present applicant came to be rejected very recently by an order
dated 15.12.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench in Special
Criminal Application No. 13517 of 2024. Drawing attention of the
Court to the order passed therein, it is submitted that he submitted
that the Court has in no uncertain terms has observed in the said
order that, ‘Therefore, the argument sought to be canvassed on behalf of
the petitioner that the dispute involved in the present case is purely of a
civil nature, does not appear to be true as the aspect of criminality of
forging the document is conspicuously present’.


5.3     It is further submitted that the de facto complainant had sent
the objection from UK to the entries in the revenue record,
however, the said objection came to be withdrawn by way of
forged authority.


5.4     Thus, making above submissions, he urged that this
application may not be entertained and it is requested to be
rejected.


6.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of


                                 Page 5 of 10
     R/CR.MA/1084/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




the respondent – State has adopted the arguments of the learned
advocate for the de facto complainant and further submitted that
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and requested not
to entertain this application.


7.     Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits
of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be
avoided.        However, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:


       a)  instant case, prima facie, appears to be rested on
       documentary evidence;



                                 Page 6 of 10
R/CR.MA/1084/2026                             ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




  b)  main accused i.e. accused No. 1 – Prakashbhai
  Mohanbhai Patel is no more;

  c)    the so-called forged Power of Attorney is not on record
  / traceable;

  d)    prima facie, there appears nothing to show that by the
  said transaction, the present applicant has gained anything
  by such forgery;

  e)    a petition was filed by the de facto complainant before
  this Court seeking direction to register a complaint and
  investigate the offence, however, the same came to be
  rejected by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 13.01.2012
  passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16787 of 2011.
  However, thereafter, the FIR in question came to be lodged
  in the year 2024 only;

  f)     in the aforesaid petition seeking direction to register
  complaint, it is the case of the de facto complainant herself, as
  observed by the coordinate Bench that, “it is her brother only,
  who, by entering into transaction with another respondent namely
  the purchaser of the land in question, on the basis of the bogus
  power of attorney, sold her land”. It is further the case of the de
  facto complainant in the said petition that, “her brother, by
  exerting pressure by the purchaser of the land in question, had
  signed the power of attorney and he confessed to that extent”;

  g)     Hitesh Ambalal Patel, who happens to be the near
  relative of the de facto complainant, has been granted
  anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench vide order dated
  26.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15504 of
  2025 in connection with complaint being A. P. No. 408 of
  2025;

  h)    in the decision in case of Ashok Kumar v. State of
  Union Terrotory Chandigarh, rendered by the Apex Court in
  Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9949 of 2023 dated
  01.03.2024, in para 12, it is observed by the Apex Court that,

                           Page 7 of 10
     R/CR.MA/1084/2026                               ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




       “There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the
       effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is equally
       true that just because custodial interrogation is not required that
       by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on
       anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature. However, a
       mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for
       anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not
       be sufficient. The State have to show or indicate more than
       prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is
       required for the purpose of investigation ”. In the case on
       hand, nothing such a sort, more particularly, more than
       prima facie cause, is shown so as to suggest as to why
       custodial interrogation is required;
                                                           (emphasis added)

       i)    the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that
       the applicant will not flee from justice and would be
       available during investigation as well as the trial.


8.     Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the
decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present
application.


9.     In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in
the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in connection with
the above-referred FIR, the applicant shall be released on bail on


                                  Page 8 of 10
   R/CR.MA/1084/2026                          ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that
applicant:


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

     (b) 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;

     (c) 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;

     (d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
     23.03.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

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

     (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;

     (g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
     move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section
     483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in the event of
     violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating
     during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to
     witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the
     investigation or trial, etc.




                             Page 9 of 10
       R/CR.MA/1084/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026




9.1        At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
bail application.


10.        It is made clear that this order of anticipatory bail does not in
any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency to investigate into the charges against the
applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.


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


                                                                                           [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/DB/1/14tss17326




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 14:03:36



                                                     Page 10 of 10