Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 309 of 2025 ==========================================================
JYOTI D/O BHIMSINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUNAL S MEHTA(9227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR FEHAD A MEMON(13378) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 12/03/2025
The court denied bail due to substantial evidence of the applicant's involvement in serious offences, emphasizing the gravity of the charges.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 388, 389, 342, 343, 466, 467, 471, 507, 120 - Information Technology Act - Sections 66
(C), 66
(D) - Application for bail - Applicant, a 26-year-old lady, arrested in connection with serious offences including extortion and forgery - Investigation completed, but substantial evidence against applicant regarding active participation in the crime, including transfer of Rs.62 lakhs - Court finds no grounds for bail. (Paras 1-7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested on 18.6.2024 for offences related to extortion and forgery, having allegedly deceived the first informant into transferring money under false pretenses regarding an intercepted parcel.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the applicant's significant involvement in the crime, including the transfer of a large sum of money and prior contact with co-accused, leading to the conclusion that bail should not be granted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the seriousness of the charges and the evidence against her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that given the substantial evidence of the applicant's involvement in the crime and the nature of the offences, discretion to grant bail was not warranted.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11201018240009 of 2024 registered with CID Cyber Crime, Police Station, District: Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 388, 389, 342, 343, 466, 467, 471, 507, 120 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Krunal Mehta appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the Respondent – State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the present offence, investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 18.6.2024 and since then the applicant is in custody. The present applicant is a lady aged around 26 years. The presence of the present applicant is no more required in the police custody for the purpose of investigation. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP for the respondent contending that applicant herein had introduced herself as Ankita Tiwari to the first informant and had asked him to deposit money in her account on the ground that some parcel had been sent by the first informant which had been intercepted by the police authorities and illegal substance had been found in the said parcel. The amount of Rs.62 lakhs has been received in the account of the applicant which had been subsequently transferred to other account by the present applicant. Thus, there is an active participation on part of the present applicant in commission of the offence in question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
6. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record.
6.1 From the record it appears that the applicant had made a phone call to the first informant and had informed him that the parcel had been dispatched by him had been intercepted by the police authorities and illegal substance had been found from the said parcel and under the said guise the first informant was asked to transfer money to the account which had been given by the present applicant to get the matter closed. The said bank amount belonged to the present applicant.
6.2 The record indicates that the total amount of Rs.62 lakhs had been received in the said account and thereafter the said amount had been transferred by the present applicant to the other co-accused. The record also indicates that the applicant had gone to Dubai few days prior to the registration of the present FIR and had come into contact with other co-accused and the plan for commission of the present offence was chalked out.
7. Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed.
