MOHMAD JAVID ABDULKADAR DHOBI (MOHMAD JAVID ABDULKADAR DHOBI)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/13887/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 13887 of 2026

==========================================================
 MOHMAD JAVID ABDULKADAR DHOBI (MOHMAD JAVID ABDULKADAR
                         DHOBI)
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PREM D DAVE, for the Respondent(s) No.2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 13/07/2026

                                 ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-
State. Learned advocate appearing for original complainant waives
service of rule on his behalf.


[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for
regular        bail     in    connection              with      FIR         being
C.R.No.11210055260698              of          2026      registered           with
Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City, for the offences under
Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B of IPC.


[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over.
Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. The applicant
has no past antecedents. He therefore submits that, considering
the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular



                                 Page 1 of 5
   R/CR.MA/13887/2026                              ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




bail by imposing suitable conditions.


[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as
well as learned advocate appearing for original complainant
opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the
present application for regular bail on the ground that the
applicant is very much involved in the present offence and
considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain
present bail application. Chargesheet is yet to be filed. If the
applicant is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that
the applicant will flee 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 offence, 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. Affidavit



                                 Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.MA/13887/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




filed by original complainant is taken on record. Allegation against
the present applicant is that on 08/11/2017 while accused was
working as a Supervisor with ‘Amaani Developers’ construction
site, at that time, he having the control of office of said firm and
with malafile intention he has forged one allotment letter and
transferred the property situated at City Survey Ward No.4,
Basement no.3 namely “Bag-E-Mehmud” In this regard, offence
was registered.            Objection raised by learned advocate appearing
for the original complainant is considered.                      Learned advocate
appearing         for      the   original     complainant    raised     grievance         in
connection of forgery of document and private expert has opined
about       the    signature       of   the      original   complainant      that        the
complainant’s signature is forged. If we prima facie accept the said
allegation against the present applicant as it is with regard to
commission of forgery, the case is based on the documentary
evidence.         One civil suit is filed in connection with the impugned
property. Following aspects have been considered:


(1)      Substantial part of investigation is over;
(2)      Applicant is behind the bar since 13/05/2026;
(3)      The Court has considered the quantum of punishment also;
(4)      There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the
applicant;
(5)      No past antecedents;
(6)      Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its
own time.
(7)      Prosecution has failed to point out the circumstances to
continue or prolong his detention.


[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.



                                            Page 3 of 5
   R/CR.MA/13887/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




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 fit 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.11210055260698                of          2026      registered           with
Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City, on executing a personal
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/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 filing of the chargesheet and after filing of the


                                   Page 4 of 5
      R/CR.MA/13887/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 13/07/2026




               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 Officer 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 offence 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.


[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 influenced 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)
ILA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ILA PRAFULKUMAR PATEL(HC00194), Principal Pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/07/2026 14:17:29




                                                    Page 5 of 5