SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5126 of 2025 ==========================================================
AMIT S/O. PANNALAL MOHANLAL PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK S. SONI, APP for the Respondent No.1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 11/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court granted bail considering the nature of allegations, gravity of accusations, and the applicant's compliance with conditions, emphasizing the balance between rights and the severity of charges.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant accused involved in a significant fraud case with multiple complaints against his bank account - The court considered the nature of allegations, gravity of accusations, and the applicant's willingness to comply with bail conditions. (Paras 2, 5, 8)

(B) Bail considerations - The court outlined three key factors: prima facie case, availability of the accused at trial, and potential for witness tampering. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant's bank account was allegedly used for fraudulent activities involving a total fraud amount of Rs.2,59,00,000/- across 14 states. The applicant was in custody since 16.11.2024.

Findings of Court:
The application for bail was allowed, with specific conditions imposed to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations against the applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail given the gravity of the accusations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the severity of the charges against the applicant's rights and the conditions under which bail could be granted.

Result: Application for bail allowed.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.

2. 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. 11191067240111 of 2024 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station. Ahmedabad City.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the bank account of the applicant was used in deposit of proceeds of fraud. There are as many as 39 complaints against the bank account across the country in 14 States. The total amount of fraud involved in the offence is to the tune of Rs.2,59,00,000/-. The applicant had knowing fully well had allowed his bank account to be used for the said purposes. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge- sheet has been filed. From the record it appears that the applicant was summoned by the other co-accused to Mumbai and accordingly, the applicant had gone to Mumbai and the other co-accused on the basis of the credentials like Aadhar Card and Pan Card of the applicant, several bank accounts were opened in the name of the applicant. The said bank accounts, as per the case of prosecution, were used by the other co-accused and in the said bank accounts the amount of proceeds of fraud was deposited. The amount which was being deposited in the said account was also withdrawn by the other co-accused through ATM. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 16.11.2024.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:

(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top