KISHIN ASHOKKUMAR KRISHNANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11191040251155 of 2025 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. Kishan Chakwawala appearing for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. He also submits that the the present applicant is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the crime, and only with a sole intention to wreck vengeance against the applicant, he has been falsely dragged into the present offence. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submits that the present FIR is dtd. 6/5/2025 for the offence alleged to have been taken place during the period between 14/3/2025 and 6/5/2025, and as such, there is a delay of almost three months in registering the FIR without there being any satisfactory explanation worth the name about such delay. The gist of the allegations against the applicant is that the complainant purchased two shops from the applicant by way of registered sale deed on payment of total sale consideration. However, later, the complainant came to know that the property purchased by the complainant was on a Government waste land, and therefore, the complainant asked the applicant to reverse the transaction and returned back the amount of total sale consideration paid by him to the applicant, upon which, the applicant threatened the complainant to be prepared to face the consequences, and accordingly, at the instance of the applicant, a person named Akash Amraiwadi, i.e, the accused No.1 called the complainant on his mobile phone and demanded ransom of Rs.2,00,000.00 and also gave life threats to the complainant and his family, and under the fear of life, the complainant paid certain amount to the accused No.1 through online mode. However, due to constant demand of ransom and life threats given by the said accused No.1, the complainant has left with no other option but to register the present FIR. These are the sum and substance of the allegations made in the FIR against the applicant, without any concrete material or evidence to substantiate the said allegations being placed on record. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence without any nexus to the crime in question and that the investigating officer in collusion with the original first informant are apprehending the present applicant with some ulterior motive and to pressurize and socially ridicule the present applicant. The present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence without there being any iota of evidence establishing any nexus of the present applicant with the commission of the crime. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that the applicant has not made any phone call to the complainant, and on the contrary, the applicant has also received a threat call from the said accused No.1-Akash demanding money from the applicant also, and to substantiate the said argument, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has produced certain documents which shows that the applicant has also paid some ransom amount to the said Akash. He further submits that, in fact, on number of occasions, the present applicant had also received threats calls from the accused No.1-Akash, and therefore, the applicant also gave a complaint in the form of an application to the concerned police authority to register the complaint against him 2/5/2025, and thus, it can be said that the present applicant has been made a scapegoat, and he himself is a victim in the hands of accused No.1-Akash as the accused No.1-Akash has usurped money from both the sides, and to substantiate his arguments, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has placed on record the transcription of the conversation that had taken place between the present applicant and the accused No.1-Akash. He, therefore, submits that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the present applicant is involved in the commission of the crime. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has made a statement at bar that the present applicant is still ready and willing to reverse the said transaction. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt further submits that even the applicant had purchased the said land from the third party, and as soon as proceedings under the provisions of Land Grabbing Act has been instituted against him, the applicant had approached this Court by way of filing quashing application, wherein after considering the materials available on record, the applicant has been protected by this Court.