GHANSHYAMBHAI VALLABHBHAI PAMBHARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 17192 of 2026
                                With
        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16991 of 2026
==========================================================
             GHANSHYAMBHAI VALLABHBHAI PAMBHAR
                               Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YN OZA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR JASH N PATEL(12983) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 12/08/2026
                              COMMON ORDER

       Since present applications are 5led by husband and wife seeking
regular bail in connection with one common FIR and similar accusations
being made, both these applications are heard, decided and disposed of by
this common order.

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent – State
of Gujarat.

[2.0] Present applications i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.17192 of 2026
(Ghanshyambhai Vallabhbhai Pambhar) and Criminal Misc. Application
No.16991 of 2026 (Asmitaben Ghanshyambhai Pambhar) are 5led under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNSS”)       for   regular   bail   in   connection   with   FIR    being         C.R.
No.11210056261003 of 2026 registered with Dindoli Police Station, Surat
City for the oEences punishable under Sections 212, 217(b), 318(4), 336(3),
338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short



                                      Page 1 of 12
    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




“BNS”); section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and section 22 of the
Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik appearing on behalf of the
applicants submits that applicants are husband and wife and are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the oEence and arrested on 22.04.2026.
The charge-sheet is already 5led and now nothing is required to be
recovered or discovered from the accused. Case is based on documentary
evidence and maximum punishment prescribed for the oEences alleged is 7
years and all the oEences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. He has
further argued that so far as allegation of forgery is concerned, present
applicants 5led Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.8186/2026
wherein the coordinate Bench has been pleased to stay the implementation
and operation of section 338 of the BNS vide order dated 29.07.2026 and
since then interim relief is operating in favor of the present applicants.
Hence, question of allegation of forgery is not applicable in the present
oEence. He has further submitted that so far as other oEences i.e. section
212 of the BNS i.e. to furnish false information to public servant is
concerned, said oEence is bailable oEence and punishment prescribed is
5ne or imprisonment of 6 months and for the oEence under Section 217(b)
of the BNS, punishment prescribed is one year and for section 318(4) of the
BNS i.e. oEence of cheating, punishment prescribed is 7 years. Further,
under the Passport Act also, maximum punishment provided is upto 5 years
and all the oEences are triable by the Court of Magistrate.

[3.1] He has further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, present
applicants are booked for the oEence under the GPID Act for which trial is
going on and pursuant to the bail granted to applicants in connection with
the GPID Act, as a pre-condition, applicants were ordered to surrender their
passports before the Court vide condition No.8(f) of the order dated
18.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3049/2022 granting
anticipatory bail to the applicants whereby it was directed that the



                                  Page 2 of 12
    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




applicants shall not leave the country without permission of the concerned
trial Court and if having passports, shall deposit the same before the
concerned trial Court within a period of one week. It is alleged that though
the passports were surrendered before the concerned trial Court, based on
false disclosure, one application was 5led by the applicants before the
Dindoli Police Station stating that passports of applicants have been missed
pursuant to which the Dindoli Police Station issued certi5cate based on
which once again passport were re-issued in favor of the applicants and
based on re-issued passports, applicants travelled abroad and in this regard,
present oEence is registered. He has further argued that so far as oEence
under the GPID Act and other oEences are concerned, present applicants
are released on bail. He has submitted that present applicants are having 5
past antecedents however, he is governed by the presumption of innocence
unless proven guilty. He, therefore, submits that, considering the nature of
the oEence, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing
suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
opposed the present applications and requested to dismiss the present
applications for regular bail on the ground that the applicants are having
5ve past antecedents and if they are released on bail, possibility of
tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that
though the applicants were fully aware that they had deposited their
passports with the concerned Court in compliance of the bail conditions,
suppressing the said fact the applicants approached the Dindoli Police
Station, Surat and managed to receive the certi5cate as regards missing of
their passports and thereafter got re-issued passports and based on said re-
issued passports, applicants travelled abroad. Hence, it is requested to
dismiss the present applications looking to the nature and gravity of the
oEence.

[5.0] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y.N. Oza assisted by learned advocate



                                 Page 3 of 12
   R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




Mr. Jash N. Patel appearing for the original complainant has vehemently
opposed the present applications based on the ground that the applicants
are history-sheeters and having no regard either for Court or law. Initially,
anticipatory bail was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court relying
on the Memorandum of Understanding (for short “MoU”) entered into by
the present applicants with 22 persons however, the applicants failed to
comply with the conditions of the said MoU i.e. condition of Bank Guarantee
of 2 Crore was Nouted. Not only that, to come out from the litigation, new
passports were got re-issued by the present applicants on the basis of
certi5cate issued by Dindoli Police Station pursuant to the application 5led
by the applicants making false disclosure before the Dindoli Police Station
that they have misplaced / lost their passports and they also travelled
abroad which is nothing but overreaching the process of Court and such
conduct alone is suOcient to reject the present applications.

[5.1] He has further submitted that conduct of the present applicants and
his father is also required to be considered. Though MoU was 5led at the
time of securing anticipatory bail oEering Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crore, to
get out from the said condition, once again an application came to be 5led
by the father of the present applicant before the coordinate Bench for
modi5cation of the said condition and instead of Bank Guarantee, father of
the applicant of CR.MA No.17192/2026 furnished property towards security
which application was allowed by the coordinate Bench and permitted the
applicant of CR.MA No.17192/2026 to oEer the property instead of Bank
Guarantee still however, the applicant tried to mislead the Court and
approached the Court with mala5de intention though the ownership of two
properties oEered towards security did not belong to the present applicant
of CR.MA No.17192/2026 and overvalued properties having defective title
came to be oEered and misled the Court. Further, the said property was
either sold out or gifted to the family members and undertaking or MoU
executed earlier by way of the settlement was also not complied with and
Court has taken note of the conduct of the father of the applicant of CR.MA



                                 Page 4 of 12
    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




No.17192/2026 as well as the applicant and deprecated such conduct and
Court was compelled to observe that the Court has gathered strong feeling
that Court has shown sympathy to a wrong person. The said judicial notice
and observations coupled with past antecedents of the applicants are
enough to reject the present applications. Furthermore, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Oza appearing for the complainant has relied on the order
passed    by    the      coordinate   Bench    in    Special    Criminal    Application
Nos.2889/2025 and 2902/2025 wherein warrant issued under Section 70 of
the CrPC came to be challenged and while rejecting the said petition, the
coordinate Bench of this Court has taken note that the present applicants
have adopted dilatory tactics in trial and derailed the smooth functioning of
the trial and for six consecutive occasions the applicants remained absent
and tried to avoid the proceedings and therefore, considering the non-
availability of applicants – accused, the coordinate Bench observed that
warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC was rightly issued and thus, rejected
the said petition vide judgment dated 28.02.2025. He has therefore
submitted that if the applicants are enlarged on regular bail, possibility of
tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out and there is serious Night risk
of the present applicants since the applicants are having 5ve past
antecedents amongst which one is under Section 306 of the IPC and one
application for cancellation of bail of present applicants is also pending
before the Rajkot Court. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present
applications.

[6.0] In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik appearing for the
applicants has submitted that whatever allegations canvassed by the
learned Senior Advocate for the original complainant are irrelevant so far as
present bail applications are concerned and present applications are only in
connection of oEence registered with Dindoli Police Station, Surat and
whatever submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Oza pertains to
oEence under the GPID Act pending with the Rajkot Court. He has also
submitted that three diEerent charge-sheets including supplementary



                                      Page 5 of 12
   R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




charge-sheet have been 5led and three diEerent cases are going on and in
total 15 witnesses are examined in all three matters and even the applicants
are ready and willing to abide by any stringent condition that this Court may
deem 5t. So far as compliance of MoU is concerned, learned advocate for
the applicants upon instructions has submitted that applicants have
complied with the order of depositing Rs.1.52 Crores by way of Bank
Guarantee and Rs.50 lakh in cash has been deposited with the Court
conducting trial of oEence under the GPID Act at Rajkot.

[6.1] Further, so far as conduct of present applicants is concerned, he has
submitted that whatever undertaking 5led in the proceedings of
anticipatory bail was given by the father of the applicant of CR.MA
No.17192/2026, who is not before this Court. Even otherwise, order dated
25.04.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench in CR.MA No.1/2022 in SCR.A
No.1692/2022 came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
way of 5ling Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.6297/2023 and
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.02.2024 was pleased to dispose
of the said petition with certain directions which have already been
complied with by the applicants. Hence, the order passed by the coordinate
Bench qua relaxation / modi5cation of bail condition has merged in the said
order. Hence, the argument canvassed by learned Senior Advocate for the
original complainant is not sustainable. He has further submitted that the
judgment passed by the coordinate Bench dismissing the petitions being
SCR.A Nos.2889/2025 and 2902/2025 5led by the applicants was also carried
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of 5ling Criminal Appeal
Nos.2428/2025 and 2429/2025 wherein pursuant to the order dated
28.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, present applicants
appeared before the concerned Court and warrant and proclamation
became infructuous. Hence, both the orders relied upon by the learned
Senior Advocate for the original complainant does not exist today. Further,
submissions qua oEence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in the said
oEence, there are other 7 accused and deceased owed money to the



                                 Page 6 of 12
   R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




present applicant and hence, any observations made by the coordinate
Bench in that case is not applicable to the present applications. Hence, he
has submitted that considering the gravity of present oEence and the fact
that all the oEences alleged in the present case are triable by the Court of
Magistrate, he has requested to allow the present applications by imposing
strictest conditions as may be deemed 5t by this Court.

[7.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged oEence, 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.

[8.0] I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers.

[9.0] It is the case of the prosecution that against the applicants an FIR
being CR No.11208053213096 of 2021 came to be registered with Rajkot
Taluka Police Station for the oEence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 114,
120(B) of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the GPID Act in connection with
which the applicants were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated
18.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3049/2022 passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court wherein condition No.8(f) was imposed and
applicants were restrained from leaving India without permission of the
concerned trial Court and also directed to deposit passports before the


                                 Page 7 of 12
    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




concerned trial Court within a week pursuant to which the applicants
deposited their passport bearing Nos.U8904600 and U890602 with the
Rajkot Court in connection of the oEence under the GPID Act.

[9.1] It is further the case that though both the applicants were aware that
they have surrendered their passports with the Rajkot Court, suppressing
the said fact, the applicants made an application before the Dindoli Police
Station making a disclosure that they have lost their passports within the
area of Dindoli Police Station, Surat and based on such false declaration and
aOdavit, the applicants received a certi5cate in that regard on 23.07.2024
based on which the applicants got re-issued new passports bearing
Nos.C0165080 and C1061793 from Surat Regional Passport OOce and
thereafter, both the applicants visited Nepal and UAE and thereby the
applicants have committed the breach of condition of anticipatory bail and
in this regard, present oEence is registered. After registration of the
present oEence, applicants came to be arrested and charge-sheet is 5led.

[9.2] Present applicants have preferred petition being Special Criminal
Application (Quashing) No.8186/2026 seeking quashing of the FIR
registered with Dindoli Police Station, wherein the coordinate Bench vide
order dated 29.07.2026 granted interim relief in terms of para 12(B) only
qua oEence under Section 338 of the BNS and hence, the proceedings qua
oEence under Section 338 of the BNS i.e. forgery of valuable security is
stayed as a consequence of which, oEence under Section 340(2) of the BNS
i.e. using forged document as genuine one also remained inoperative.

[9.3] So far as other sections of BNS are concerned, they are punishable
with maximum imprisonment of 7 years. Even, section 12(1)(b) of the
Passports Act is also punishable with imprisonment upto 5 years and Section
22 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 i.e. to secure travel
document by furnishing fraudulent information is punishable with
imprisonment upto 7 years and all the oEences alleged against the present
applicants are triable by the Court of Magistrate.


                                  Page 8 of 12
      R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




[9.4]     So far as past antecedents are concerned, applicants are having 5ve
past antecedents but in all the oEences, the applicants are released on bail
and hence, unless and until proven guilty, applicants are governed by
presumption of innocence.

[9.5] Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the original complainant as
well as learned APP have drawn the attention of this Court qua conduct of
the present applicants more particularly misleading statements made
before and as noticed by the coordinate Benches of this Court but in one
application, father of the present applicant was the petitioner and even
otherwise both the orders passed by the coordinate Benches were carried
upto Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders
and even otherwise, said observations were made by the coordinate
Benches in connection of the proceedings under the GPID Act and the
complainant has already approached the designated concerned GPID Act
Court at Rajkot and application for cancellation of bail of the present
applicants is pending before the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, this
Court is not going to make further comment on the said aspect as said
proceedings will take its own course.

[10.0] This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(1)       Investigation is over and charge-sheet is 5led;

(2)       None of the oEence alleged is punishable with life sentence or
          death penalty and are punishable with maximum imprisonment upto
          7 years and is triable by the Court of Magistrate;

(3)       Applicant – Asmitaben Ghanshyambhai Pambhar is a lady accused
          and both the applicants are behind the bars since 22.04.2026;

(4)       There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicants;

(5)       Though the applicants are having past antecedents, they are



                                    Page 9 of 12
      R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




          presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;

(6)       Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some
          time;

(7)       So far as possibility and potentiality of applicants to tamper with
          evidence and Night risk is concerned, it may be taken care of by
          imposing stringent conditions and even otherwise, re-issued
          passports of the applicants are already con5scated and cancelled by
          the Passport Authority;

[11.0]            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.

[12.0]            In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
nature of the allegations made against the applicants in the FIR, without
discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that
this is a 5t case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on
regular bail. Hence, the present applications are allowed. The applicants are
ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11210056261003 of 2026 registered with Dindoli Police Station, Surat
City on executing a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh
Only) each with ONE SOLVENT SURETY of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall;




                                     Page 10 of 12
    R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




     (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 territory of State of Gujarat without prior
            permission of the Trial Court concerned;

    (e)     mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in 15
            days for a period of SIX months and thereafter once in every
            month from 1st to 5th of each English Calendar Month between
            11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the trial gets over;

    (f)     furnish the copy of Aadhaar card, email ID/contact number /
            permanent and present address of their residence to the
            Investigating OOcer and also to the Court at the time of
            execution of the bond and shall not change the residence and
            contact number/SIM card 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 applicants;

    (h)     regular attend the court proceedings and remain present before
            the concerned trial Court on each and every date of hearing;


[13.0]         The authorities will release the applicants only if they are not
required in connection with any other oEence 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.

[14.0]         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.

[15.0]         At the trial, the trial Court shall not be inNuenced by the
observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by
this Court in connection of the present oEence while enlarging the


                                   Page 11 of 12
       R/CR.MA/17192/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 12/08/2026




applicants on bail.

[16.0]             The concerned Court before which application for cancellation
of bail of the present applicants in connection with oEence under the GPID
Act is pending shall decide the same independently on its own merits
without being inNuenced by any of the observations made in the present
order.

[17.0]             Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the
applications. Direct service is permitted.

                   A copy of this order be placed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.16991/2026.



                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/08/2026 15:15:05




                                                  Page 12 of 12