Gujarat HC Refuses Bail to Advocate Accused of Orchestrating Land Forgery Against Overseas Citizen

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a regular bail application filed by an advocate accused of forging documents to fraudulently transfer agricultural land belonging to a UK-based overseas citizen, finding him the kingpin of the entire conspiracy.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, on 24 June 2026, dismissed a pre-charge-sheet regular bail application filed by Jitendrasinh Naransinh Rathod, a practising advocate of 22 years, who is accused of forging a sale deed to transfer agricultural land owned by a United Kingdom-based overseas citizen. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly, found that the applicant had prima facie orchestrated the entire conspiracy, received financial consideration from the fraudulent transaction, and distributed proceeds among co-accused. The court held that the applicant's role was materially graver than that of co-accused who had already been granted bail, and that releasing him at this stage would risk tampering with prosecution evidence.

The FIR and the Alleged Fraud

The case arises from FIR No. C.R. No. 11202057250613 of 2025, registered at Sikka Police Station, District Jamnagar. The offences alleged are under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), 242, and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The complainant is a citizen of the United Kingdom. He owned agricultural land at Village Vasai, old Survey No. 77/2, new Survey No. 43, admeasuring 3 Acres 30 Gunthas. When he visited India in April 2024, he discovered on 10 September 2024 that the land had been converted to non-agricultural use and was being marketed for sale. On checking revenue records, he found that the land had been sold on 11 February 2025 to one Bhagwanjibhai Hansrajbhai Gori by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 49 lakhs, with the seller shown as Amitbhai Damjibhai Shah. The sale deed was executed by impersonating the complainant, and the consideration was paid through a cheque drawn on Navanagar Co-operative Bank, Udhyognagar Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Two witnesses — Navinbhai Ramji Gori of Jamnagar and Yogesh Keshavji Shah of Mulund, Mumbai — were named in the document.

The complainant approached the authorities, managed to restrict further transfer, and lodged a complaint. Investigation revealed that the applicant, in his capacity as an advocate, had introduced Yogesh Jhakariya, Mitulbhai Jakariya, and Ashokbhai Jakariya to Bhagwanjibhai, and in connivance with these four persons had prepared a forged document. The consideration amount was deposited in the account of co-accused Vinodbhai Nandu. At the applicant's instruction, Rs. 50 lakhs was transferred from his wife's account, Rs. 9 lakhs was transferred to Bhagwanjibhai's account, and a further Rs. 6 lakhs was subsequently received by the applicant.

Applicant's Case for Bail

Advocate Mr. A. L. Mansuri, appearing for the applicant, advanced three principal arguments. First, that the applicant had merely rendered professional services as an advocate and no independent criminal role was attributed to him. Second, that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of eight months, and no material demonstrated his involvement. Third, that co-accused persons had already been released on bail by a coordinate bench, and the applicant was entitled to parity.

The applicant was arrested on 22 May 2026. He had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application, but withdrew it when the court indicated it was not inclined to grant relief. He was thereafter arrested.

State and Complainant's Opposition

The Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. K. Patel and Advocate Mr. V. D. Ruparel, appearing for the original complainant, opposed the application on several grounds.

They submitted that investigation against the applicant was still ongoing and the charge-sheet had not been filed qua him. The co-accused who were released on bail had been granted that relief only after the charge-sheet was filed against them. Other co-accused remained to be arrested. The prosecution characterised the applicant not as a professional rendering legal services but as the kingpin and mastermind who had identified the complainant, prepared the forged document, and received and distributed the consideration. Rs. 15 lakhs was said to have been transferred into the account of his wife, with the remaining amount distributed among co-accused. Given that the offence carries a punishment of life imprisonment, the prosecution argued there was a real risk of evidence tampering if bail were granted.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Suthar set out the established factors for deciding bail applications: the nature of the accusation and severity of punishment; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering or threat to the complainant; the likelihood of the accused absconding; the character and standing of the accused; and the larger public interest.

Applying these factors, the court found that the investigation papers prima facie showed the applicant had orchestrated the entire conspiracy. He had prepared the forged document, received the financial consideration, and distributed it among co-accused. The court rejected the defence that the applicant had only rendered professional services, observing that he had actively participated in the offence and received financial benefit.

On the parity argument, the court drew a clear distinction between the applicant and the co-accused who had been released on bail. The co-accused released by the coordinate bench had been granted bail after completion of investigation and charge-sheet filing. That co-accused had been shown as the purchaser and was treated as a victim in the transaction, with a third party having received Rs. 49 lakhs. The present applicant's role was categorically different: he was the main conspirator who designed the scheme, introduced the witnesses and purchaser for fraudulent purposes, and managed the financial flows. The court held that the applicant could not claim parity because his role was on a higher footing than those already released.

The court referred to three Supreme Court decisions in support of its reasoning. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr., reported in LL 2021 SC 221, the Apex Court had addressed the principle of parity in bail. The court also cited Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, and the recent decision in Sagar v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 INSC 1370, to reinforce that parity cannot be claimed where the role and involvement of the applicant is graver than that of the co-accused who obtained bail.

On the question of incomplete investigation, the court held that the filing of a charge-sheet or completion of investigation against co-accused is not a ground for bail when investigation against the applicant himself remains pending. The applicant could not take advantage of evidence or roles attributed to co-accused in a charge-sheet that did not cover him.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, for the proposition that liberty is not absolute and no person can act in a manner that jeopardises the life or liberty of others.

Justice Suthar made a pointed observation about the applicant's professional standing: “Advocacy is a noble profession and the applicant has taken undue advantage of his knowledge and indulged himself in criminal activity.” The court found that releasing the applicant would adversely affect the prosecution's case, given the real possibility of evidence tampering.

Outcome

The court dismissed Criminal Misc. Application No. 12854 of 2026. It held that this was not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in favour of the applicant.

The court added the standard caveat that all observations in the order are tentative in nature, and the trial court shall decide the applicant's case independently on its own merits without being influenced by anything stated in this order.