In a case of visa fraud where one of the accused persons alleged that the Police Officials gave special treatment to other co-accused, the Gujarat High ordered the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter after finding the Police Authority’s explanation to be not satisfactory.

The Petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent- Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad to initiate legal/ departmental proceedings against a Police Inspector (third Respondent) for giving special treatment to accused no. 1 & 2 in a case registered under Section 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt asserted, “...prima facie, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation given by the concerned Police Authority and, therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, ultimately, the aforesaid differential treatment can be considered as administration function of the concerned Authority to look into such matter.”

Advocate Prashant V Chavda appeared for the Applicant while Additional Public Prosecutor Chintan Dave appeared for the Respondent-State.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that other similarly situated persons who were arrested had been released on bail on the same day and no remand qua them was sought for. However, for the present petitioner, remand was sought and after completion of remand, the concerned JMFC Court released him on bail. It was submitted that though similarly situated persons have almost identical roles in the offence committed pursuant to some transaction regarding VISA, differential treatment is being given by the officers of the Anandnagar Police Station to the present petitioner and other accused.

The APP for the respondent – State submitted that when the accused - Daksh Kailasgiri Goswami was arrested, it was found that he was having Cancer and another accused in this matter is a lady. Hence, remand was not sought for considering the normal practice. As per the respondent, remand was required to be sought for the petitioner as he played the main role in the offence.

Reasoning

The Bench considered the totality of the facts and circumstances as well as the submissions and held that the explanation given by the concerned Police Authority was not satisfactory.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by directing, “...let the concerned D.C.P. Zone – 7 look into the allegations made in the present matter, and if it is found correct, hold proper inquiry and take necessary action.”

Cause Title: Radhikkumar Jayantibhai Dhameliya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:3396)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate Prashant V Chavda

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Chintan Dave

Click here to read/download Order


Gujarat High CourtJustice Sandeep N BhattPolice inquiryGrant of Bail

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.