Gujarat High Court
Pathubha Merubha Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 9131 of 2025
==========================================================
PATHUBHA MERUBHA GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH for MR GAURANG K CHAUHAN(9858) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT for MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the
Respondent(s) No.2
AAG MR MITESH AMIN with MR HARDIK DAVE PP for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the offence being CR NO. 11198020240637 of 2024 registered with Gogha Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC read with Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of Gujaarat Control of Terorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is not named as an accused in the FIR. The involvement of the present applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The provisions of GUJCTOC were not invoked at the time of registration of the FIR. Subsequently, the investigating officer had submitted a report before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghogha for adding the provisions of GUJCTOC to the FIR. As such learned CJM, Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined Ghogha would have no jurisdiction to entertain such application. The custody of the present applicant would thus amount to be illegal custody. He further submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 13.10.2024 and since then he is in custody. The offence alleged in the FIR was committed on 22.06.2022 whereas the FIR came to be lodged in that regard in the month of August 2024. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained. It is further submitted that the applicant was implicated in the FIR only because of some political rivalry. The applicant has admittedly not forged any of the documents involved in the present offence nor those documents have been used before any authority as genuine. He further submitted the applicant is sought to be implicated in the present offence on the basis of the statement of one of the witnesses. The first statement of the said witness came to be recorded on 12.05.2024, wherein there has been no reference to the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Thereafter another statement of the said witness came to be recorded on 01.06.2024 wherein the said witness has wrongly disclosed the name of present applicant. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing with learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave has vehemently opposed the application contending that the present applicant along with the other co-accused had prepared the forged documents of Power of Attorney (for short be read as 'PoA') in the names of donors. The said PoA was purportedly notorised by notary named Bhalchandra B Gandhi. The said documents was prepared on 18.07.2017, however, the said Mr. Bhalchandra Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined Gandhi had expired long back on 23.02.2010. The donors in the said PoA in their respective statements recorded during the course of investigation have denied about having the signed any such PoA. He further submitted that the said PoA was prepared on the stamp paper bearing No. AA914021. The very same stamp paper was also used for preparation of another forged PoA. The said PoA was purportedly notarised before the notary of Mr. Dinesh T Rathod, who in his statement, has denied having notarised any such PoA. The beneficiary in both the aforesaid PoA was the co-accused namely Mahavirsinh Kanubha Gohil, who is the member of the syndicate with the applicant. The applicant herein along with other co-accused are in habbit of preparing such forged documents with an intention of grabbing valuable lands.
It is the modus operandi on the part of the applicant and the co-accused that they were preparing such documents with regard to the parcels of land regarding which they have received the information that some transaction is going to take place and on the basis of such forged documents they demanded the ransom amount from the lawful owner of the said land. There are several such offences registered against the applicant and the co-accused. He therefore submitted that number of such forged documents have been recovered from the farm house belonging to the present applicant on 21.10.2024. He therefore submitted to dismiss this application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Virat G Popat appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the application contending that the material collected during the course of investigation clearly indicates the role played by the present applicant in commission of the offence. The material also indicates that the applicant is an active member of the syndicate involved in Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined commission of such offence and several such offences have been registered against the syndicate which are of similar nature. He further submitted that the applicant herein would remain in search of such parcels of land regarding which some transaction is going to take place and as soon as such information is received qua any parcel of land in the area, the applicant along with the co-accused would prepare forged documents like PoA, agreement to sale etc.,and would extort money on the basis of those forged documents from the lawful owner of the property in question. So far as the aspect of delay in the FIR is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Popat submitted that the complainant lodged the complaint with the police authorities qua the parcel of land involved in the present offence as well as the land involved in another offence registered against the present applicant, out of which, the FIR with regard to other land came to be registered earlier, whereas in the present offence the FIR got delayed because of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station. There are other instances of present applicant along with co-accused having forged the documents with regard to other parcels of land with an intention to extort money from the owners of those lands. He therefore requested this Court to dismiss the application.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.
6. As per the case of prosecution, the PoA came to be executed in favour of one Mahavirsinh Kanubha Gohil, who is the member of the syndicate in the other otffence vide aforesaid PoA all the rights as regards to the land bearing survey no. 105 situated at Village Tagdi Taluka Ghoga, district Bhavnaagar were given to the co- accused Mahavir Gohil. The said PoA, was not executed by the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined original owners of the land in question and therefore the FIR came to be lodged with regard to the same. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the notary named Bhalchandra B Gandhi who purportedly notarised the said PoA had actually expired much prior to the said PoA in the year 2010, hence, the said PoA is forged. It further appears that the said PoA was prepared on the stamp paper bearing registration no. AA914021. On the very day, another PoA came to be prepared in the names of the owners of the land in question. The said PoA was also purportedly executed in favour of Mahavirsingh Kanubha Gohil and the same was notarised by notary Dinesh T Rathod on 18.04.2017. The said notary Mr. Dinesh T Rathod in his statement recorded during the course of investigation has denied of having notarised any such Power of Attorney. The agreement to sale qua the said land also came to be prepared in the names of Ravindrasinh Gohil and Ravirajsinh Mahavir Gohil. The materials available on record indicate that number of such forged documents were found out from the farm house of the present applicant. Several other offences have been registered against the present applicant and the co-accused who are the members of the syndicate involved in such activities. It appears that it is the modus operandi of the syndicate to keep watch of the lands in the area with regard to which some transaction is going to take place and as soon as any such information is received, the syndicate would prepare such forged documents with regard to the said parcel of land and, on the basis of those forged documents, would trap the lawful owner of the said land to pay money to settle the dispute. The record also indicates that the syndicate has also filed several civil suits before the competent civil court with the help of such forged documents with an intention to extort money from the lawful owners of the land and to deprive him from his lawful rights Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9131/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined over the land since he did not pay money as demanded by the syndicate, as noted hereinabove. There are several offences registered against the applicant wherein the very same modus operandi of the applicant and the syndicate is coming forth.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the application stands dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) Radhika Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Thu Jun 26 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 27 00:03:34 IST 2025