IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3229 of 2026 ==========================================================

BHUPENDRAKUMAR JAYKISHANBHAI SHARMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR NAUMAN S QURESHI(10669) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nauman Qureshi appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Divyangna Jhala 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. 11210005251510/2025 registered with Athwalines Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T.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.

4.1. Learned advocate would further submit that the applicant, to show his bona fides, is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- without prejudice to his rights.

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. The allegation is of having defrauded the complainant and other accused by promising them government jobs and having taken in total an amount of Rs.16,90,000/-.

ii. While the role of the applicant is very clear as per the investigation papers, yet, considering the nature of crime, the role attributed to the present applicant, the maximum punishment that could be imposed so also considering the age of the applicant who does not have any antecedents, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

iii. This Court has also considered the voluntary statement made by learned advocate Mr.Qureshi that the applicant would deposit an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to show his bona fides i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- as a pre-condition and Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of three months from the date of his release, on which aspect also this Court is inclined to consider this application.

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 released on bail in connect