ASHISH NAVALKUMAR SUREKA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Yash Nanavaty for the applicant, learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent State and learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the complainant.

(2.) At the outset, it requires to be observed that vide an order dtd. 20/11/2025, this Court had directed the DCP, Zone 6, to remain present before this Court today, more particularly noting that the Investigating Officer had not reported twice.

(3.) Today, learned APP has tendered a report submitted by DCP concerned, Dr. Karanraj Vaghela, more particularly stating that since the fax message, which has been sent by the office of the Public Prosecutor had reached the concerned police station late in night and whereas the investigation having been transferred to the Economic Offences Cell, therefore, due to the communication gap, the Investigating Officer could not remain present. The steps taken by the present Investigating Officer to apprehend the present applicant have also been described.