An applicant should not be indefinitely detained solely for failure to comply with a monetary deposit condition for bail, especially after the charge-sheet is filed and the applicant demonstrates a genuine inability to pay.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Dave appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Ms.Mita Panchal appearing on behalf of the original complainant.

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. 11204021230561/2023 registered with Dakor Police Station, Kheda for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 114 of the IPC.

3.1. The applicant has been arrested for the aforementioned offence and had been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5629/2024 inter alia on a condition that the applicant would deposit the entire amount of the alleged fraud i.e. Rs.36,92,000/- before the learned Trial Court within a specific period of time.

3.2. It appears that the out of the total amount being Rs.36,92,000/-, the applicant had paid Rs.10,00,000/- in total i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- in two installments and the applicant, on facing certain difficulty, had moved an application for modification of order and vide order dated 19.07.2024, learned Coordinate Bench had permitted the applicant to deposit the remaining amount in 12 equal installments.

3.3. The said condition also not being complied with, the learned Trial Court had ultimately issued warrant and the applicant having been apprehended, the applicant had approached the learned Trial Court for being released on regular bail and the same not having been acceded to, the applicant has approached this Court by way of this application.

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 Mr.Dave on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, in case the present applicant does not attend the trial regularly, the learned Trial Court may be permitted to forfeit the entire / part of the amount in question.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and learned advocate Ms.Panchal for the complainant have 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 fact that the applicant though ready and willing to deposit, could only deposit part of the entire amount i.e. a total of Rs.10,00,000/- and having remained in custody since 18/9/25, reflects inability to pay.

ii. The fact of the applicant being in custody s