IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 280 of 2026 ==========================================================

GOPALBHAI KARSHANLAL THAKKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 09/03/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.M.Devnani 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. 11215017250250 of 2025 registered with Mehelav Police Station, District:Anand for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S.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 being that the applicant and other accused had defrauded the complainant and other victims by placing orders for various material and thereafter not making appropriate payment.

ii. It would appear that the present applicant or the accused, did not have any long standing business relation with any of the victims or for that matter the complainant and whereas, prima facie, it would appear that the modus- operandi of the accused was to defraud the unsuspecting persons by placing orders etc.

iii.The fact of around goods worth Rs.10 Lakhs, recovered from the godown, at the behest of the present applicant revealling the role of the present applicant very clearly.

iv. The above being the case yet, considering the fact that the applicant is stated to be in custody since 09.10.2025, the charge-sheet having been laid and the applicant having no past antecedents, aged around 58 years, this Court is inclined.

v. This Court has also considered the submissions made by learned Mr. Devnani under instructions, that the applicant without prejudice to his rights and contentions is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs with the learned Trial Court and more particularly, to show is bona fides.

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 considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be release