IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4279 of 2026 ==========================================================

KRUSHNADEVSINH @ LALU RANJITSINH JADEJA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. PIYUSH M VALA(14238) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.ALBIN KURIAN(17196) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 23/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR bearing No. 11213064250875, lodged at Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural, dated 12.12.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 411, 420, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, 2000.

2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that:-

2.1 The present applicant is innocent and wrongly roped in the present offence without any credible material. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The present applicant is in no way directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the alleged offences.

2.2 That the FIR has been registered after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about one year and 8 months from the alleged date of occurrence, despite the fact that the entire alleged crime was reported on the NCRP Portal prior to registration of the FIR, which delay strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the allegations inherently doubtful and an afterthought.

2.3 That the registration of the FIR is only to show departmental actions under the pretext of hunting mule accounts, and there are no credible evidence or allegations with regard to the exact amount of alleged crime being committed by the applicant.

2.4 That merely because the co-accused stated the name of the applicant, the applicant was wrongly roped into the alleged offence. There is no independent evidence against the present applicant, and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the co-accused, which cannot be relied upon, coupled with the fact that no custodial interrogation is either warranted or necessary.

2.5 That the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, served upon the present applicant on 02.02.2026, which was also served on the sister of the applicant, and the mandate as provided under the law has not been followed, namely the service of notice within 14 days from the registration of the FIR. It appears from the conduct of the investigating agency that the presence of the present applicant is not required for investigation.

2.6 That the essential ingredients of Section 411 of the IPC are not prima facie attracted against the present applicant, as per the section, ‘stolen property’ includes only that which is obtained by theft, robbery, dacoity, or extortion. Property which has been obtained by forgery or cheating would not fall within the meaning of ‘stolen property’ as defined in the said section. Thus, the entire FIR is lodged without proper application of mind and proper appreciation of the law, and the said FIR is registered in a hurry to reflect contribution towards hunting of mule accounts.

2.7 That no role is attributed to the present applicant to attract Section 420 of the IPC, since, from the statement of the co-accused, no allegations with regard to cheating or inducing or cybercrime are surfacing on record.

2.8 That the essential ingredients of Section 66(c) and 66(D) of the IT Act are also not attracted, as the present applicant has not stolen any identity which would have been used in the alleged crime, nor is any cheating by impersonation using computer resources alleged; and hence, Sections 66(C) and

66(D) are not attracted in the facts of the case.

2.9 That the aforesaid sections are falsely alleged against the present Applicant so as to prevent expiry of limitation under Section 514 of BNSS.

2.1