Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J
PRADIPBHAI KHODABHAI DAVERA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (MODIFICATION/DELETION OF CONDITION) NO. 1 of 2025 | R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19878 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR DEVANSH KAKKAD
For the Respondents: MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, MR VATSAL D RUPAREL
Bail conditions must be strictly adhered to; non-compliance justifies rejection of application to leave the country.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 - Conditions of bail regarding payment of dues to victims - Applicant failed to pay Rs.51,51,00,000/- as ordered, and only Rs.3 Crores deposited by the applicant - Police report indicates non-fulfillment of conditions and concerns regarding applicant's intent to flee abroad. (Paras 3, 9)
(B) Bail Conditions - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to bail conditions and the statutory intent of the GPID Act to protect victims' interests in deposit recovery cases. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was released on bail conditionally to pay significant amounts to victims under the GPID Act, but failed to do so, raising concerns about compliance and intent to leave the country.
Findings of Court:
The court found the applicant did not meet bail conditions and rejected the application to leave the country due to non-compliance and potential risk to victims.
Issues: The main issues included the fulfillment of bail conditions and concerns regarding the applicant's compliance and intention to flee abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that given the applicant's failure to fulfill payment obligations under the GPID Act, the request for freedom to leave the country was not justified.
Result: Application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's obligation to fulfill payment is critical. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. concerns about the applicant's intent to avoid payment. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. non-compliance with bail conditions leads to application rejection. (Para 7 , 9) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (MODIFICATION/DELETION OF CONDITION) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19878 of 2021 ================================================================
PRADIPBHAI KHODABHAI DAVERA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANSH KAKKAD for MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA(5787) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MR VATSAL D RUPAREL for the Complainant ================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 23/06/2025
IA ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Vatsal D. Ruparel states that he has instructions to appear for the complainant. Let his Vakalatnama be accepted.
2. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.06.2025, the Police Inspector, Gandhigram-2 (Uni) Police Station, Rajkot City has filed a report dated 23.06.2025. It is stated therein that apart from the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, offences have been lodged under Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (in short ‘GPID Act’).
3. The applicant was released by the order of this Court dated
21.03.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19878 of 2021. The total amount to be recovered was stated to be Rs.51,51,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Crore Fifty One Lakhs and out of this, Rs.11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores) was shown to be paid to the victims The applicant was put to the condition that initially, he had to pay Rs.1 Crore within a period of two months from the date of his release and thereafter, to deposit the sum of Rs.2 Crore within a period of six months and the balance amount to be paid within a period of 12-18 months.
4. As per the Report of the Police, on 01.02.2023 an amount of Rs.1 Crore and on 21.09.2023, an amount of Rs.2 Crores has been deposited, i.e. in total Rs.3 Crores has been deposited in the Court while rest of the amount is yet to be paid. The time period to deposit the amount has elapsed, on 29.03.2025. The Report further suggests that the applicant has been convicted in six of the cases by the Court/s at Jamnagar, which were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. The Police on enquiry has also noted that the applicant has made a prayer to visit Vibrant Petrochem FZE, Umm Al Quwain Free Trade Zone Authority, U.A.E. However, it is stated by the police that the License of the Company has expired on 18.03.2018 and the same get reflected on the website dated 20.12.2021. Thus, the police has very strongly objected to the present application.
6. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Devansh Kakkad has produced a copy of the License No.4852 to submit that the license is valid till 17.03.2026. However, the report shows that the License was already cancelled on 20.12.2021. Learned advocate Mr. Devansh Kakkad has failed to show on record the revival of the license.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Report of the Police to state that the applicant is not a law abiding citizen and has not fulfilled the conditions of bail. The matter is with regard to GPID Act and the victims are entitled for receiving their money as per the Scheme of the above Act and therefore, has vehemently objected to this application.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Vatsal D. Ruparel appearing for the complainant that the amount/s have not yet been paid as per the order of this Court and the complainant has an apprehension that to avoid the payments, the applicant is rushing out of the country and therefore, urged to reject this application.
9. Having considered the submissions canvassed,
