LAALJIBHAI MANEKBHAI DESAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18534 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LAALJIBHAI MANEKBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN N MAJMUDAR(14000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KARTIKEY D KANOJIYA(11031) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
YUVRAJ BRAMHBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 31/08/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned Advocates
waives service of rule for respective parties.
1.1 By way of the present Application filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, the Applicant has
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.
11191006260162/2026 dated 25.06.2026 registered with
Bodakdev Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences
punishable under Section 189(1),189(2),191(1), 191(2), 324(4),
303(2), 331(4), 61(2) and Section 190 of the BNS.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
2. The contents of the FIR are that:-
“My name is Ayan S/0 Deepakbhai Nagori, aged about 49,
occupation: business, resident of 41, Bhad Society, Sandesh Press Road,
Parvapūr, Ahmedabad City. I have appeared in person and hereby state
and submit my complaint as follows:
I reside with my family at the above-mentioned address and I carry on
the business of trading in timber/wood in the Timber Market near the
Sola Carville Petrol Pump. A plot jointly owned by me is situated on
Rajpath-Rangoli B Road, near S.K. Farm, at Bodakdev village, bearing
Survey No. 156/1/2/5, F.P. No. 105. Regarding illegal entry into the said
plot, damage/vandalism, assault and abuse, a complaint has already
been registered at Bodakdev Police Station against Bhavesh Vadhu Bhai
Rabari, Vijay Harjibhai Rabari, Ravi Raymalbhai Rabari and Laljibhai
Desai, vide C.R. No. 1119100626139/2026, under Sections 329(3),
296(b), 351 and 54 of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, in order to prevent these
persons from entering our said plot again, I have engaged security
guards of Pront Alert Security Pvt Ltd. for the security and supervision of
the plot. Today, i.e. 24/06/2026, 14 female and 9 male security guards
were present at our said plot for security and supervision. At about 21:18
hours, I was present at my home when I received a telephone call from
our security guard Adilbhai Pathan. He informed me that Bharatbhai
Thakor and his wife Sangeetaben, who were accompanied by persons of
Mukeshbhai and Laljibhai Desai, along with approximately 15 to 20
female bouncers and 8 to 9 unknown persons carrying sticks, had broken
the metal sheets installed around the plot. They were forcibly entering the
plot, and when the security guards tried to stop them, they engaged in a
physical scuffle with the security guards, used force against them, and
forcibly entered the plot. Upon receiving this information, I immediately
called the Police Control Room and informed them about the incident.
Thereafter, I and my fiancée Kshamaben arrived at the plot after some
time. When we reached there, the unknown persons were no longer
present. We saw that the metal sheets installed around our plot had been
broken by these persons. Further, the solar-powered CCTV cameras
installed in the plot well as the cameras and wiring used for recording,
had been damaged/broken. The memory cards from the cameras were
found safe/intact. There were two DVRs used for recording at the plot.
Out of these, one DVR from the outside room was stolen and taken away.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
There is also my office situated on the said plot. The office was locked.
Upon opening and checking the office, the second DVR was found safe
and intact. The electricity meter was also broken/damaged, due to which
the electricity supply was disconnected. All the female and male security
guards at our plot were involved in a scuffle and physical assault with
these persons. In the incident, female security guard Rubinabanu Sheikh
sustained injuries from a stick on her left wrist area and right leg area.
Another female security guard, Sherbanu Sheikh, sustained an injury on
her left upper-arm area after being struck with a stick. Female security
guard Rupaben sustained blunt injuries to her hand. Our security guard
Adilbhai Pathan has been working as a security guard for approximately
the last one and a half months. Since we had previously lodged a
complaint against Laljibhai Desai at Bodakdev Police Station, Adilbhai
knows Laljibhai and Bharatbhai. Further, since Bharatbhai Thakor, his
wife Sangeetaben Thakor and Mukeshbhai have repeatedly come to this
plot and harassed me, Adilbhai knows Sangeetaben, Bharatbhai and
Mukeshbhai very well. Therefore, with the intention of taking possession
of our plot, Laljibhai Desai and Mukeshbhai, on 24/06/2026 at about
21:15 hours, had, after making prior arrangements/planning, sent
Bharatbhai Thakor and his wife Sangeetaben, along with approximately
15 to 20 female bouncers and 8 to 12 males, to our jointly owned plot
situated at Bodakdev village, Survey No. 156/1/2/5. All of them, having
joined together and acting in concert, armed with weapons such as
sticks, broke the metal sheets installed around the plot, engaged in a
scuffle with the female and male security guards, assaulted them with
sticks, and forcibly entered the plot with the intention of taking
possession of it. They broke the solar-powered CCTV cameras used for
recording, worth approximately Rs. 15,000/-, damaged the cameras used
for wired recording, worth approximately Rs. 5,000/-, and broke the
electricity meter and disconnected the electricity supply. They also stole
one recording DVR from the outside room, worth approximately Rs.
12,000/-. Thus, they caused total damage/loss of approximately Rs.
32,000/- and fled from the place before the police arrived. I have a
proper/legal complaint against the said persons. My witnesses are our
security guard personnel and such other persons as may be found during
the course of police investigation. This is my complaint, and the facts
stated herein are correct and true as per what I have stated.”
3. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the applicant
would submit that even as per the allegations in the FIR, the
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
presence of the present applicant is not there and nearly by
invoking Section 61(2) of the BNS (120B of the IPC), it cannot be
said that the present applicant was involved in the alleged crime.
3.1 Learned advocate further submitted that even as per the
CCTV footage as collected during investigation would reveal that
the present applicant was not present at the alleged date, time,
and place of offence, and that the allegations leveled against the
present applicant are vague and general in nature, and that the
applicant has no knowledge whatsoever about the alleged
offence and has no role to play, and has thus urged to allow the
present petition.
3.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the
judgment in the case of Sajal Bose versus State of West
Bengal reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 76792 to buttress the
argument that when there is unimpeachable material such as
CCTV footage where the absence of accused from the alleged
incident is found, the continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law. The second judgment is in the
case of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi versus State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2022(0) AIJEL-SC 69737 , to buttress the
argument that there has to be some necessary link of conspiracy,
even a passive acknowledgment of conspiracy is not averred in
the FIR, and there is no material apparent on the face of the FIR
alleging any common design to commit such offence, and in
absence of such material has prayed to quash the FIR.
3.3 Learned advocate for the applicant further relied upon in
the judgment in the case of Mohammad Bilal Ghulam Rasul
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Kagazi versus State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 211 of 2020 on 19.06.2026, wherein a specific
case of alibi was raised by the applicant therein, and the CCTV
footage has been handed over to the investigation agency by the
indulgence of the High Court, which falsified the claim of the
complainant having talked with the said applicant, and thus it
was held that under such circumstances, the petition was
allowed, and has heavily relied upon para 6.1 and 6.2 of the said
judgment.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mitesh Amin with
learned advocate Mr. Kartikeya Kanojiya for the original
complainant, relying upon the affidavit on behalf of the
respondent no. 2, original complainant, would submit that prior to
the lodging of the present FIR, FIR against the present applicant
dated 06.06.2026, was lodged for the similar type of offence,
trying to possibly enter into the disputed property, and it is only
just after a couple of days, more particularly on 24.06.2026, that
the applicant has sent his accomplices to take forceful possession
of the plot and has also committed crime as alleged in the FIR.
4.1 That the factum of whether there is any criminal conspiracy
or not is a question of trial that too, after completion of the
investigation, and there may not be any clear category and
express agreement between the accused, however, whether such
agreement or concurrence of a common design is there or not
can be only arrived after full-fledged trial, and has thus argued
that when similar type of offence just prior to lodging of the
present FIR had been committed for taking forceful possession of
the plot under question, this Court should be loath in quashing
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the present FIR wherein force was also used, and though the
presence of the present applicant is not there, the question of
criminal conspiracy still requires to be investigated, and has thus
argued to reject the present petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State would
submit that the presence of the applicant is also evident from the
call details in the vicinity of the alleged office, more particularly,
though residing in the nearby vicinity, the factum of his residence
is also tainted with land grabbing, inasmuch as a Complaint is
also lodged before the competent authority against the present
petitioner for having grabbed the land from the original plot
owner way back in the year 2004. However, the committee has
yet to decide whether any offences were committed or note.
However, would submit that the modus operandi operated by the
present applicant is a question of evidence after completion of
investigation, and thus throttling of the investigation at the very
nascent stage by this Court is not warranted, and has thus
argued to reject the present petition.
5.1 Learned APP would further submit that apart from the
location, the present applicant was also in constant touch with
the accused persons who were present at the alleged place of
offence, which would be evident from the call details in the
vicinity of the alleged office.
6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. This
Court has gone through the FIR.
6.1 Following undisputed aspects surface on record:
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
6.1.1 The FIR being FIR No. 11191006260139 of 2026 came
to be lodged before the Bodakdev Police Station for offences
punishable under Section 296(b), 351(2), 329(3), and 54 of the
BNS on 06.06.2026 at 19:00 hours,
6.1.2 The present FIR, where the presence of the applicant
is not even stated either in the FIR or subsequent reports
submitted by the investigation agency to add further sections.
6.1.3 The factum of an application to lodge an FIR before
the competent authority for land grabbing is also pending.
6.2 Though it is an admitted fact that the presence of the
present applicant is not averred in the FIR or in the subsequent
report, the factum of criminal conspiracy cannot be brushed aside
lightly in view of the fact that the FIR dated 06.06.2026 against
the present applicant and three other persons namely Bhavesh,
Vijay, and Ravi, for forcibly entering and threatening the
complainant, for which after a period of almost 18 days, except
for the present applicant, other persons had approached at the
disputed property and has committed crime as alleged in the FIR.
6.3 Though it is not necessary that there must be a clear
category and express agreement between the accused, however,
even as per the judgment relied by the learned advocate for the
applicant in the case of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi (Supra) , it
has been held that an implied agreement must manifest upon
relying on principles established in the case of circumstantial
evidence. The relied judgment is after confirming the sentence
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
imposed by the Trial Judge and considering the evidence on
record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
st
No. 213 of 2006 dated 05.08.2008 and that of the 1 Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Case 228 of 2004 dated
07.08.2024. However, the investigation is yet to be carried out in
the present case. The anticipatory bail of the present Applicant
though has been rejected by the trial court, however, is pending
before this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no role of
the present applicant in the alleged crime more particularly when
Section 120B of IPC / Section 61(2) of the BNS is invoked, and
also considering that 18 days prior also such an attempt was also
made by the present applicant. The factum of applicant being in
constant touch with the offenders who were present at the place
of offence cannot also be likely brushed aside.
6.4 As far as reliance on the judgment in the case of Sajal
Bose (supra) is concerned. The said judgment was with regards
to offence punishable under Section 143, 341, 323, 324, 506,
504, 509, 427, and 354 of the IPC, wherein none of the
ingredients of Section 61(2) of BNS/ 120B of the IPC were
alleged, and under the circumstances, the judgment relied is of
no help.
6.5 As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
applicant in the case of Mohammad Bilal Ghulam Rasul Kagazi
(supra) is concerned. The facts were totally different, wherein the
advocate of the applicant therein was defending the case against
the complainant, and having found that he was not present when
the alleged threat was administered to the complainant, under
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18534/2026 (GJHC240560852026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
such circumstances, merely making an averment of 120B of IPC /
Section 61(2) of the BNS was not believed, and it was a specific
case that he was in contact with his client being an advocate and
representing against the complainant, had contacted on
telephone and thus, it was held that it would not amount to
criminal conspiracy. Under the circumstances, the relied
judgment is also of no help.
6.6 In the case on hand, the constant touch with the offenders
who were present at the alleged place of offence through mobile
phone as relied by the investigation agency and argued by
learned APP also cannot be given a go-by when the investigation
is yet to be completed.
6.7 Though, it is argued that the application for land grabbing
relates to the different piece of land given by different
complainant and has nothing to do with the present complainant
or FIR however, would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the
conduct of the present Applicant and modus operandi adopted is
concerned.
7. In view of the reasons stated above, no case is made out.
Captioned Application stands rejected accordingly. Rule is
discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:15:37 IST 2026