SANOVAR ANVARHUSSEIN BAKKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    R/CR.MA/17126/2026                                ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 17126 of 2026
==========================================================
                         SANOVAR ANVARHUSSEIN BAKKAR
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. AMAAN SYED(14385) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 13/08/2026

                                    ORDER


[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is "led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11207024260182 of 2026 registered
with Godhra Taluka Police Station, Panchmahals, for the o1ences under
Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the o1ence.
Substantial part of investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recovered
or discovered. Case is based on documentary evidence. The applicant has
not forged any death certi"cate. He therefore submits that, considering the
nature of the o1ence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by
imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned
counsel for the complainant have opposed the present application and
requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground
that though one Beniben expired after 1981, her death certi"cate came to
be issued by the accused persons in the year 1979 and used the same as


                                    Page 1 of 5
   R/CR.MA/17126/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




genuine one in RTS proceedings and based on the said documents, power of
attorney made and tried to cancel mutation entry. Chargesheet is yet to be
"led. Further, the applicant is having past antecedents and if he is released
on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant will ;ee from
justice and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, present application does
not deserve consideration.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged o1ence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be
exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the
nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of
the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the
State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects
have been considered:

      (1)     Substantial part of investigation is over;
      (2)     None of the o1ence alleged is punishable with life sentence or
              death penalty ;
      (3)     Applicant is behind the bar since 05.07.2026;
      (4)     There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the
              applicant;
      (5)       Though the applicant is having past antecedents, he is
              presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;


                                   Page 2 of 5
    R/CR.MA/17126/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




       (6)     O1ence is triable by JMFC Court.
       (7)     Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take
               its own time.
       (8)      Case is based on documentary evidence.
       (9)     t is alleged in the FIR that one Beniben died after the year
               1981; however, her death certi"cate was allegedly issued by
               the accused persons in the year 1979 and was subsequently
               used as a genuine document in the RTS proceedings. On the
               basis of the said document, a power of attorney was prepared
               and an attempt was made to get the mutation entry cancelled.
               It is pertinent to note that the present applicant did not forge
               or fabricate the death certi"cate of Beniben. The speci"c role
               attributed to the applicant is limited to tendering the power of
               attorney, which was based on the alleged forged document,
               before the authority in the RTS proceedings. Thus, the
               applicant neither prepared nor forged the alleged death
               certi"cate and had no role in its issuance.

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of
trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but
amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated
principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as
well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.


[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing
the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a



                                    Page 3 of 5
    R/CR.MA/17126/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




"t case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11207024260182 of 2026 registered with Godhra Taluka Police Station,
Panchmahals on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-
"ve Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/she shall;

   (a)     not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
   (b)     not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution &
           shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not
           to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected
           by the police;
   (c)     surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
   (d)     not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial
           Court concerned;
   (e)     mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a week
           till "ling of the chargesheet and after "ling of the chargesheet,
           mark presence before the concerned police station once in a
           month for a period of six months;
   (f)     furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his
           residence to the Investigating OIcer and also to the Court at the
           time of execution of the bond and shall not change the
           residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial
           Court;
   (g)     not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial
           Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.


[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
connection with any other o1ence for the time being. If breach of any of the
above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to
issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.



                                    Page 4 of 5
          R/CR.MA/17126/2026                                                       ORDER DATED: 13/08/2026




    [10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to
    try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
    and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

    [11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be in;uenced by the observations
    of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court
    while enlarging the applicant on bail.

    [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
    permitted.




                                                                             (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

    SUCHIT




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/08/2026 18:35:23
                                                       Page 5 of 5