IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 26127 of 2025 ==========================================================

MANU BUDDHI PRAKASH SHUKLA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

HIREN P KANDERA(9497) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS C. M. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 11/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant is apprehending arrest at the hands of Cyber Crime Police of Morbi, as regards the FIR which came to be registered vide Part- A C.R. No.11189010240008 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, as well as under Section 66(d) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicant was not named in the FIR however, was arraigned as an accused only on the ground of suspicion, as well as upon the statement of the co-accused.

2. The brief facts of the FIR which came to be lodged by one Ketan Prabhulal Dalsaniya, resident of Morbi, are pertaining to the amount of Rs.98,00,000/- which he had transferred through RTGS in a UCO bank account. As mentioned in the FIR, the original complainant had known one Sharat Chandak, the Executive Director of Johnson Company. The original complainant had received a message from one whatsapp number, which bore the photo of Mr. Sharat Chandak, requesting him to deposit the amount of Rs.98,00,000/- in a UCO bank account, as an advance payment for some project. The complainant after having transferred the amount had contacted Mr. Sharat Chandak, however was shocked to hear that, Mr. Sharat Chandak had never demanded money from him, pursuant to which, he had lodged the complaint.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren P. Kandera for the applicant, who has reiterated the facts of the petition. Mr. Kandera has submitted that, the applicant was never named in the FIR and has been wrongly arraigned as an accused. Mr. Kandera has further submitted that, the applicant has not been benefited in any manner, and all the accused who had played active roles in the commission of the crime, have been arrested and have also been released on regular bail. Hence, this application should be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. C. M. Shah, who has strongly opposed the application submitting that, the offence pertains to Cyber fraud which was systematically carried out by the accused, wherein, the applicant also had a definite and active role to play. The investigation clearly revealed the participation of the applicant in the crime. Hence, this application should be rejected.

5. At the outset, on perusing the investigation papers it appears that, the accused Shyambihari Parmanandji Nagar had asked accused Lokendra@Lucky to open a bank account, which could be used to deposit money and accordingly, accused Lokendra had opened an account with Axis Bank and the passbook, checkbook, ATM card and SIM card which was linked with the said account were taken by accused Shyam, who in turn had paid some amount to accused Lokendra.

5.1 It is also revealed that, the accused Asif had introduced accused Harsh to accused Shyam and, it was Shyam who had handed over the passbook, checkbook, ATM card and SIM card which was linked with the said account to the present applicant, and he was to deposit the amounts which were collected by way of fraudulent means in the said account, and in turn was to pay

1% commission to Harsh and Shyam.

5.2 Learned APP Ms. Shah has also drawn the attention of the court towards the bank statements which reflect the entries of money, which were deposited by way of fraud. Thus, it appears that all the accused had created a syndicate to dupe people of their money by way of Cyber fraud. The amount of Rs.98,00,000/- was deposited in the account of accused Sarita Devi with UCO Bank.

6.