Gujarat High Court
Pulkitbhai Chandrkantbhai Sathvara vs State Of Gujarat on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20172
of 2025
==========================================================
PULKITBHAI CHANDRKANTBHAI SATHVARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant who is apprehending his arrest in the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 409, 465, 468, 469, 467, 471 and 167 of the IPC, Sections 43(i) and 66 of the Information and Technology Amendment Act, 2008 and Section 12(3) of the Gujarat Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2023 has preferred the present application praying for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. The said offence came to Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined be registered vide part I CR No. 11191027250164 with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad on 26.08.2025.
2. The FIR came to be lodged by one Praveen Kumar Chhaganbhai Savaliya, the Assistant Manager of the Interview Branch of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Central Office. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation conducts recruitment processes to fill up the vacancies of various departments of the Corporation. It is mentioned in the FIR that, the applicant who was the Head Clerk in the Interview Branch, was assigned with the responsibility of operating the e-mail and also perform duties pertaining to computer and website, which also included uploading public notice, preparation of merit list for document verification and uploading the same, preparing call letters, uploading of web notification, answer key, result etc. It is further mentioned in the FIR that, during the various recruitment processes which were Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined undertaken by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the year 2021, the applicant by misusing his position had wrongfully approved the appointment of 8 persons for various posts, and thereby had committed the offence.
3. It is fruitful to observe that in the said FIR itself, the original complainant had mentioned about the applicant also having added marks for 3 candidates in the recruitment process no. 28/2023-2024 for the post of Assistant Technical Supervisor (Engineer) for which, an FIR was registered previously.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta for the applicant who has reiterated the contents of the application. Mr. Mehta has stated that, the applicant has already been suspended from service and all the appliances which the applicant was using in his official capacity, have been seized by the I.O., hence, his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has also submitted that, in light of the fact that a previous FIR was registered Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined against the applicant under same set of circumstances and same set of allegations, the present FIR could not have been registered by the Police. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta in support of such contention has relied upon the judgment in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs The Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2013 SC 3794 and in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors . Reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 731. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has more particularly drawn the attention of this Court to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 32 which is reproduced as hereunder:-
"32) This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Anthony (supra), this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined the Constitution. The following conclusion in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant which read as under:
"19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC..
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC..
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
The above referred declaration of law by this Court has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial pronouncements even while carving out exceptions."
5. Heard learned APP Ms. Jhaveri, who has at the outset submitted that the previous FIR, wherein, the applicant came to be granted regular bail and the present FIR, both relate to different transactions i.e. different recruitment processes taken up during Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined different time periods. According to learned APP Ms. Jhaveri, the involvement of the applicant is writ large on the face of investigation which has been conducted till date, hence, the present bail application should be rejected.
6. It is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) has observed that, "that the second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transactions is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution." It is fruitful to observe that, the applicant came to be arraigned as accused in the prusant FIR dated 26.08.2025, before the Karanj Police Station, vide I-CR No. 1191027250164 of 2025, under the same penal sections as mentioned in the previous FIR, the periods of recruitment processes were different, hence it cannot be said that the present FIR was an extension of the previous FIR. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that, Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined though the applicant was granted regular bail in the previous offence by the Co-ordinate Bench vide the order passed in CR.MA No. 8125/2025 on 24.04.2025, the present FIR came to be registered on 26.08.2025, for his identical misdeeds committed between the period from 26.02.2023 to 14.02.2024. Thus, the time period of offence mentioned in both the FIRs were different and the recruitment processes also being different. The fact that the original complainant, the penal sections under which the said both FIRs came to be registered and the accused being the same, cannot be termed as the acts of the accused comprising of same transactions, so as to seek benefit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) and Tarak Dash Mukharjee (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) and Tarak Dash Mukharjee (supra) cannot be made applicable to the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20172/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined case on hand. In the event, it does not deem fit to this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
8. Consequently, the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANIRUDH OJHA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by ANIRUDH OJHA(HC02370) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 21:43:41 IST 2025