The Gujarat High Court has refused regular bail to an advocate accused in a case involving the alleged execution of a forged sale deed for agricultural land in Jamnagar district. Observing that "advocacy is a noble profession," the Court held that the material placed before it prima facie indicated the applicant's active role in the alleged conspiracy and that the investigation against him was still in progress.
Background of the Case
The application was filed by Jitendrasinh Naransinh Rathod under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered at Sikka Police Station, Jamnagar.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, owned agricultural land in Village Vasai. After visiting India in April 2024, he learnt on 10 September 2024 that the land had been converted into non-agricultural land and was being marketed for sale. On verifying the revenue records, he allegedly discovered that a sale deed dated 11 February 2025 had been executed by impersonating him for a stated consideration of ₹49 lakh.
The applicant contended that he had merely rendered professional legal services, had been falsely implicated, that the complaint was lodged after an eight-month delay, and that co-accused had already been granted bail.
Court's Observation
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar noted that the investigation papers prima facie suggested that the applicant had introduced other accused persons, prepared a forged document, and allegedly played a central role in the transaction. The Court also referred to the prosecution's allegation that money arising from the transaction was transferred through accounts linked to the accused persons and that the applicant had allegedly received financial benefit.
Rejecting the plea for parity with co-accused, the Court observed that those accused had secured bail after completion of investigation and that their role was different from that attributed to the present applicant.
The Court observed,
"Advocacy is a noble profession and the applicant has taken undue advantage of his knowledge and indulged himself in criminal activity."
It further held that, if released on bail, there was a possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence.
Decision
Finding that the investigation against the applicant was still pending and that this was not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS, the High Court dismissed the regular bail application. The Court clarified that the observations made in the order are tentative and that the trial court shall decide the case independently on its own merits without being influenced by them.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jitendrasinh Naransinh Rathod v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – Before Chargesheet) No. 12854 of 2026
Judge: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Decision Date: 24 June 2026
