Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, granting bail to the applicants subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat heard multiple anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by five accused persons (original accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5, along with two others already on bail) in connection with FIR No. 11189003251588 alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114, 120 and 34 relating to a disputed sale deed and alleged forgery. The applicants contended that the FIR was delayed, the original complaint had been closed, the matter was essentially civil, and they had no direct involvement in the alleged fraud. The State and the complainant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and alleged conspiracy. The Court examined factors such as the nature of the allegations, prior bail to co‑accused, lack of prima facie overt act by some applicants, and the pending civil suit, and concluded that the FIR showed serious anomalies that favoured the applicants. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to all applicants subject to a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and a set of conditions.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate exercise of discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS in granting anticipatory bail to the accused?
Do the facts alleged in the FIR constitute a serious offence warranting denial of anticipatory bail?
Does the prior closure of the complaint and the pending civil suit affect the bail decision?

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482, s. 483(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120, s. 34, s. 420, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

anticipatory bailSection 482Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaIPC offencesfraudsale deedcivil suitbail conditions

Judgment

R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 26433 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3962 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3715 of 2026

================================================
UPENDRA BHAGWANJI KASUNDRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 24/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. As all these matters arise out of the common FIR, the same
are heard together and being decided by this common order.

2. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents
waive.

3. By these applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants

Page 1 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11189003251588 of 2025,
registered with Morbi City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District:
Morbi for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 114, 120 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Filtered details of the prosecution case are that original
accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the father and son respectively, by
hatching conspiracy, winning trust of the de facto complainant, got
the sale deed executed of the land belonging to the de facto
complainant allegedly when the de facto complainant was under
influence of alcohol and thereafter, got credited the sale
consideration without knowledge of the de facto complainant in his
bank account and in connivance with the bank Manager and bank
employee, the co-accused got the cheque book of the de facto
complainant and allegedly by forging signature of the de facto
complainant, used his bank account and the original accused No. 3
got transferred Rs.1,14,00,000/- from his account. Thus, on these
facts, FIR in question came to be registered.

5. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties.

5.1 The learned advocates for the respective applicants have
submitted that;

a) the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in

Page 2 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

the crime in question;

b) that, for the transaction of 2022, substantive FIR is
lodged in the year 2025 only;

c) that, initially the complainant had filed a complaint
and after due inquiry and investigation, the same came to be
closed vide Police Report dated 19.06.2023 having found no
substance in the same;

d) that, the complainant’s version suffers from material
contradictions and deliberate suppression inasmuch as, the
complainant has not stated that in FIR that allegedly, in an
inebriated condition, he was first taken to Advocate’s office
and then, to the Sub-registrar’s office, which was his case in
the representation filed by him on 15.04.2025 before the
Investigation Officer (IO);

e) the original accused No. 1 is enlarged on regular bail;

f) the original accused No. 2, who is son of original
accused No. 1 is granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions
Court;

g) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.
26433 of 2025 – original accused No. 3 is concerned, it is

Page 3 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

stated that FSL Report dated 06.08.2025 does not disclose
commission of any offence by the applicant inasmuch as
sample signatures do not match with the disputed
signatures;

h) so far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3962 of 2026 is
concerned, it is submitted that the applicant, who is original
accused No. 4, was working as a Bank Manager at the
relevant time and has no role in the crime in question and
that, no any overt act committed in the alleged crime
inasmuch as, the cheque books were issued by the
Accountant of the bank. Further, it is the Accountant only
who verifies the signature and the applicant, as a Branch
Manager has to endorse the RTGS Form. It is further stated
that the applicant is not, in any way, beneficiary of the
disputed transaction;

i) so far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3715 of 2026 is
concerned, it is stated that applicant, who is original accused
No. 5, is a Hotel Staff in the Hotel owned by the original
accused No. 3 and accused No. 1. It is stated that as an
employee, following instructions of his master i.e. accused
No. 1, in good faith, he had gone to fetch the cheque book
from the bank and except that, nothing is attributable to the
present applicant as this applicant is also not a beneficiary of
the disputed transaction;

Page 4 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

5.2 Learned advocates for the applicants submit that the nature
of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is
not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicants will keep
themselves available during the course of investigation and trial
also and will not flee from justice.

5.3 The learned advocates for the applicants further state that
the applicants shall abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and
to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.

6. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence
and requested not to entertain this application.

6.1 The learned advocate for the de facto complainant also
vehemently opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the present
applicants, submitted that the applicants – accused, in connivance
with each other, has committed the crime in question in which,
while the stake amount is huge, the property of the de facto
complainant is also at stake. The learned advocate submitted that
taking disadvantage of the situation i.e. the de facto complainant
being under influence of alcohol, the applicants herein, outplayed
the de facto complainant and got him entered into the disputed

Page 5 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

transaction and also used his cheque book and the account.
Accordingly, it is urged that these being applications for
anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of offence,
may not be entertained.

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) prima facie, the transaction in question appears to be
civil in nature;

Page 6 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

b) the transaction is question is of 2022 for which,
substantive FIR is filed in the year 2025;

c) earlier application of the de facto complainant came to
be closed on 19.06.2023 as no offence, as alleged, was made
out after due inquiry and investigation by the police;

d) for the disputed sale deed, civil suit is filed by the de
facto complainant, which is pending before the competent
Court;

e) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.
3962 of 2025, original accused No. 4 is concerned, he was the
Branch Manager of the Bank and his role was to endorse the
RTGS Form and so-called cheque books are also stated to
have been issued by the Accountant only and thus, no prima
facie no direct/overt act appears to have been committed by
him in the crime in question;

f) so far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.
3715 of 2026, original accused No. 5 is concerned, his role is
to fetch the cheque book from the bank only at the instance
of the accused No. 1;

g) original accused No. 2 – Vishwas Kanaiyalal Detroja, is
granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 10.10.2025;

h) original accused No. 1 – Kanaiyalal Sundarjibhai
Detroja, who appears to have greater role than the present
applicants before this Court, is granted regular bail by the
coordinate Bench vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 26887 of 2025, wherein, the
observations made by the coordinate Bench are relevant and
hence, are extracted as under:

“6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the papers. Following
aspects are considered:-

Page 7 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

(i) At the outset, it requires to be observed that the
allegation in the FIR is for an offence, which has been
committed from 17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022, whereas the FIR
has been registered on 28.08.2025. It would appear in this
regard that while the FIR appears to have been registered
upon the direction of a learned Magistrate in Criminal
Inquiry No.163/2023 at the instance of the complainant, yet
it would appear that there are certain gaps, which have
raised a question as regards the bona fide of the complainant
himself.

(ii) It would appear in this regard that the FIR inter alia
states about the complainant having a parcel of land in
Mehsana District and whereas the applicant and his son
having approached the complainant, who also appears
happens to be near relative and was staying at Morbi,
for purchase of the land in question.

(iii) The allegation being that the complainant was
brought to Ahmedabad and whereas the complainant was
made to stay at the residence of the applicant and he was
made to consume liquor and he was taken to the office of the
Sub-Registrar under the influence of liquor and whereas he
did have any clue as to what he was to doing when he had
registered the land in favour of the applicant herein or his
son.

(iv) The complaint further states that the applicant and his
son had thereafter by obtaining cheques of the bank account
of the present complainant, siphoned off the consideration
amount coming to Rs.1,14,00,000/- approximately, more
particularly the amount having been deposited in the
account of the applicant and / or his son and / or certain
firms, which belong to the applicant or his son. The
transactions happening from 17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022.

(v) It would appear in this regard that since the
investigation did not reveal anything as regards the status of
the complainant when he had gone to the office of the Sub-

Page 8 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

Registrar for registration of the sale deed, this Court had
called upon the learned APP to instruct the Investigating
Officer to take appropriate instructions in this regard and
whereas the statement dated 08.01.2025 of the then Sub-
Registrar, Kalol, is tendered before this Court and whereas it
appears that the Sub-Registrar clearly submits that while, as
a general rule, any person coming to have sale deed
executed is asked by the Sub-Registrar as regards his
state of mind whether he is entering into the
transaction out of his free will etc. and it is only upon
appropriate satisfaction as regards the voluntary
nature of the transactions does the Registrar permit
the documentation. It also appears that the Sub-Registrar
had asked the various questions to the seller of the property
i.e. the complainant herein and based upon that, the
Registrar had come to a conclusion that the
complainant was in normal state of mind, both
mentally and physically, and that he did not appear to
be intoxicated at all.

(vi) It also appears that the Investigating Officer has
obtained a copy of the CCTV footage, when the sale deed had
taken place and whereas a perusal of the CCTV footage also
very clearly reveals that the complainant does appear to be
intoxicated or under any influence at all.

(vii) It also appears that the second part of the allegation is
with regard to the consideration amount, having been
siphoned off by the present applicant and his son and
whereas it appears that the cheques were issued whereby the
amounts were transferred from 17.10.2022 to 27.11.2022. It
would appear in this regard that the first complaint was
made by the present applicant on 06.12.2022 i.e. after more
than a period of two months from the date the first cheque
had been encashed. Most importantly, it appears that
the present complainant had an SMS facility on his
mobile phone, whereby upon any cheque being
deposited in his account for either credit / debit, the
bank would immediately send an SMS to the

Page 9 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

complainant.

(viii) It thus, prima facie appears that there is something
more to the transaction than meets the eye, inasmuch as the
FIR itself appears to be questionable as the first part
of the FIR prima facie appears to be exaggerated as it
does not appear that the complainant, when he had
gone to register the property, was intoxicated or under
influence of any substance of such nature. As far as the
second part is concerned as noticed hereinabove, though the
applicant was intimated real time about money being
withdrawn from his account, yet from 17.10.2022 to
27.11.2022, the complainant waited till 06.12.2022 to file his
first application. Considering the above, to this Court, it
would appear that while there may be some part of the
transactions, which may be questionable as far as the
applicant is concerned, yet overall, the entire FIR appears to
have some very serious anomalies, benefit of which would
accrue in favour of the applicant.

(ix) An important issue raised in this regard by the
learned advocate Mr. Abichandani for the complainant being
that the credentials of the applicant himself may be
appreciated inasmuch as the applicant, though was detained
by the officer of Vadodara police, yet the applicant had
managed to abscond from the police station and whereas
under such circumstances, no discretion may be exercised in
favour of the present applicant.

To this Court it would appear that while it is alleged that
applicant had absconded, while he was in custody, yet it also
does not appear that the applicant except for the present FIR
was wanted in any other case. It has also been pointed out to
this Court that at the relevant point of time, anticipatory bail
application of the present applicant was pending and upon
anticipatory bail application being withdrawn, the applicant
had either surrendered or had been arrested by the police
authority. Having regard to such a position, to this Court, it
would not appear that the present applicant having come out

Page 10 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

from the detention of police official would have any bearing
on the present application.

(x) It also appears that the applicant is a retired employee
of the State Government / State Undertaking and except for
two antecedents under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
does not have any other antecedents.”
(emphasis added)

i) 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,
“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, considering the
role of the present applicant;

j) the learned advocates for the applicants have assured
that the applicants 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

Page 11 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

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
applications.

9. In the result, the applications are allowed by directing that in
the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicants in connection
with the above-referred FIR, the applicants shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with one surety of like amount each on the
following conditions that applicants:

(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
02.04.2026 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;

Page 12 of 13
R/CR.MA/26433/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026

(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.

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
applicants who are granted pre-arrest bail.

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

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/SB/1/4,7,8tss24326

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 24/03/2026 11:23:10

Page 13 of 13