IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 6696 of 2026 ========================================================

HASIB ABRARBHAI ANWARBHAI LODHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. O.I. Pathan appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Jadeha 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.11209017251086 of 2025 registered with Himmatnagar Rural Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the GUJCTOC 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. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The FIR under the GUJCTOC Act, and the allegation being that the accused were part of an organized crime Syndicate, defrauding people by promising them visa to various countries and taking substantial sums from them and thereafter not providing the visa etc. and/ or providing fake visas.

(ii) It appears that there are six offences registered against the accused, and whereas the present applicant was also an accused in all six offences.

(iii) It appears that while enlarging the present applicant on regular bail, this Court has considered the fact that the applicant was shown as an employee of the main accused ( one Sikandar Lodha), as per the affidavit of the Investigating Officer before the learned Sessions Court. Even in the affidavit filed before the learned Sessions Court in the present FIR, it would prima facie appear that the present applicant is stated to be working on behalf of the main accused named hereinabove.

(iv) The present applicant prima facie did not have any independent role to play in the offence in question except working on the instructions of the accused who were managing the visa consultancy firm.

(v) The fact of the applicant being in custody in the present offence since 05.01.2026, and the applicant being in custody since

07.10.2025 insofar as the substantive offences are concerned.

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 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 an