IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4118 of 2026 ==========================================================

DHIRUBHAI KALYANBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

Leave to amend is granted.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11201002240048 of 2024 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad Zone, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passports Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed, 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. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Allegation against the applicant is that the applicant, as a Visa agent, having taken large sum of money, and promised Visa to various country including United States, and having defrauded the complainant and the other victims by not providing the Visa etc.

ii. The fact that while the Investigation Officer has recorded statements of various victims, and whereas while it is alleged that the applicant was promised huge sums, if the Visa had come through, yet, except for the statements of few persons, totaling to around Rs. 70,00,000/-, it does not appear that any other victim has given any money to the present applicant for the purpose of obtaining Visa etc.

iii. While it appears to this Court that the offence may be serious, more particularly since the allegation is that the applicant had tampered with passports etc. yet, considering the fact that the applicant has been arrested on 13.11.2025, the charge-sheet having been filed and most of the evidence in question being documentary, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

iv. This Court has also taken into consideration the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Gateshaniya for the applicant, under instructions, that the applicant to show his bona fide, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with the learned Trial Court, i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- as pre-deposit and Rs. 15,00,000/- within a period of two months after his release on bail.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and con