IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Bagdiya Chirag Labhubhai - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 3149 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Information Technology Act - Sections 66
(C) and 66
(D) - Anticipatory bail application - Applicant accused not named in FIR, claims false implication - Allegations of conspiracy and forgery involving substantial financial fraud - Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Principles governing grant - Court must balance individual rights against societal interests, especially in economic offences - Granting anticipatory bail may hamper investigation and allow tampering with evidence. (Paras 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2)
Facts of the case:
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging conspiracy and financial fraud involving substantial amounts, with claims of false implication and lack of evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy and emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to prevent tampering with evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant's involvement was established and the necessity of custodial interrogation for investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's involvement was prima facie established, and granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and allow for potential tampering with evidence.
Result: Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.
ORDER :
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent-State of Gujarat.
[2.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11192011240756 of 2024 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 316(2), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant herein is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, there is no any allegation against the present applicant and he is neither in contact with the complainant nor has received any payment from the complainant. The present applicant is implicated only on the basis of statement of one Vivek Vadodaria which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. In the said statement it has been stated that present applicant has received Rs.4 lakh which has gone in the account of co-accused Gunjan Sardhara. The applicant is not having any past antecedent and is a law abiding citizen. Further, nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant. Further, nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
[4.0] The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the application on the ground that the present applicant is the main conspirator and he has committed the offence by developing a mobile application under the pretext of Motilal Oswal Finance Group by forging the letter head and tax clearance certificate in the name of Motilal Oswal Group Company and provided online VIP Service group link wherein the applicant added the present complainant as part of criminal conspiracy by providing over the counter membership by forging the certificate in the name of Motilal Oswal Group and receiving different bank accounts from the complainant under the pretext of making investments in the stock market in the name of “Manaba Finance” IPO and “Deccan Transcon Leasing Ltd.” IPO. Further, the complainant was lured under the pretext that he will get huge profit and on such profit he had to pay 20% service charge and 15% short term income tax on the profit to the tune of Rs.1,43,49,110/- online and thereby the applicant has committed the offence. Further, the investigation in the present case is at nascant stage and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary as the applicant has forged the Tax Notification Letters and other documents of Motilal Oswal Group and even the applicant has four similar type of past antecedents and therefore, if protected with shield of anticipatory bail then the possibility of indulging in similar offence and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. In view of the aforesaid fact, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much important for qualitative investigation of the offence.Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
[5.0] The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. So far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature o
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted if it hampers investigation, especially in cases involving economic offences.
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases; the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, especially in serious economic offences.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of fraud, necessity for custodial interrogation, and applicants' absconding status.
Anticipatory bail is not an absolute right, especially in economic offences, where the court must balance personal liberty against the need for effective investigation.
The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.
Anticipatory bail should not be granted in serious economic offences where there is a risk of evidence tampering and ongoing investigations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.