IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 774 of 2026 ==========================================================

PRINCE PARSHOTTAMBHAI @MAHESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ASHOK N PARMAR(2431) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR GIRISH D CHAVDA(3226) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ashok Parmar appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Niraj Sharma 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.11217042250002/2025 registered with Cybercrime Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 319(2), 340(2), 336(3) and 61(2)(b) of the BNS and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT 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. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

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

i. While the FIR alleges fraud and the total amount involved appears to be approximately Rs.1.15 crores and whereas, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation being that the applicant had opened a bank account through which an amount of approximately Rs.13,00,000/- had been transacted, for which, the applicant had received Rs.50,000/- as commission.

ii. It would prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in the offence to the extent of opening of the bank account in question and whereas, prima facie, it does not appear that the applicant had any knowledge about the principal offence.

iii.The fact of the applicant being in custody since 23.07.2025, the charge-sheet having been laid and the applicant being 19 year old boy.

iv. The fact of there being no antecedents against the present applicant of being involved in any offence of any nature.

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

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against 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.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in conn