NITINBHAI MANOJBHAI PURSWANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/4571/2026                              ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
                  CHARGESHEET) NO. 4571 of 2026

========================================================
                          NITINBHAI MANOJBHAI PURSWAMI
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR NL RAMNANI(2400) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. A. N. RAMNANI (14156) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                 Date : 24/02/2026

                                  ORAL ORDER


1.      Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.L Ramnani on behalf of the applicant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta on behalf of
respondent- State.


2.      Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.


3.      The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has
preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11993006251552 of 2025 registered
with A Division Gandhidham Police Station, Kachchh- East
Gandhidham for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2),
336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 before filing of the


                                     Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.MA/4571/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicants
having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.


4.     Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering
the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the
applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since
the charge-sheet is not filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the
applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court if released on bail.


5.     As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular
bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and
the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the
discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.


6.     This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and
perused the FIR as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as
affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.


7.     This Court has also considered the following aspects:


       (i)      The allegation being that the applicant had connived with the
       co-accused and whereas had created a forged Power of Attorney
       whereby the original documents of the property were released by the
       bank from whom a loan had been obtained.



                                    Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/4571/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




       (ii)     The fact that the present applicant, is a complete outsider to
       the transaction between the co-accused and the bank in question.


       (iii)    It also appears that the entire theory of Power of Attorney may
       be required to be considered, with a pinch of salt more particularly
       since the original documents which were mortgaged with the bank in
       question, showed the co-accused as owner of the property i.e the
       allegation being along the line that the owner of the property having
       forged a Power of Attorney of her husband, to get the original
       documents, which were in her name from the bank in question.


       (iv)     The present applicant being a person who was intended
       purchaser, appearing to have been wrongly roped in.


       (v)      The fact of the present applicant being in custody since
       01.02.2026 without any antecedents.


8.     This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.


9.     In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made in the First Information Report, without discussing
the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a
fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.




                                    Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.MA/4571/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




10.      Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to
be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11993006251552
of 2025 registered         with A Division Gandhidham Police Station,
Kachchh- East Gandhidham on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;


       [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;


       [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;


       [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;


       [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
       Sessions Court concerned;


       [e] Mark his presence at the concerned Police Station once in a week
       till charge-sheet is filed and thereafter once in a month for a period
       of six months;


       [f]       furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to
       the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change
       the residential address without prior intimation to the I.O.


11.     The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
free to take appropriate action in the matter.


                                      Page 4 of 5
        R/CR.MA/4571/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




 12.        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.


 13.       At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any
 observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this
 stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicants
 for being released on regular bail.


 14.       The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made
 absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.



                                                                                   (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
 NIRU


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: NIRU ROSHAN SHAH(HC00211), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 26/02/2026 12:04:39




                                                     Page 5 of 5