IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 3829 of 2026 ==========================================================

BHAVESH DIPAKBHAI RATHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 10/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this application under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with FIR being CR No. 1121000824175 of 2024 registered with Sarthana Police Station, Surat for the offence under Sections 178, 179, 180, 181 and 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent-

State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that, the applicant is engaged in the profession of printing and was given the design of currency note to be printed on fabric and he was never found in possession of any counterfeit currency notes. It is further mentioned that, the applicant had no role in printing the counterfeit currency notes, and the prosecution had failed to explain that if the applicant is alleged to have committed the offence of printing and circulating counterfeit currency notes, how the cutters, fevicol and other materials were required for the said purpose. In fact, the applicant being engaged in doing artwork has been falsely arraigned as accused in the present offence. It is further submitted that, the counterfeit notes cannot be printed on plain and simple papers, and it was only the act of art on part of the applicant to impose the print of currency notes of Rs. 100 on fabrics. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that, the provisions which are mentioned in the FIR are not attracted, the chargesheet has already been filed and the applicant is in custody since the year 2024. Hence, considering all these aspects, the present application be allowed and the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to necessary conditions.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent state who has strongly objected this application submitting that, the applicant along with two other co-accused namely Rahul Shambubhai Chauhan and Pavan ShriKrushna Banode were found in conscious possession of total 1202 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination, when the police had raided the place of incident. Ms. Jhaveri has submitted that, in the FIR itself it is mentioned that, apart from the counterfeit currency notes, there were various ink bottles, green foil paper, scale, cutter, scissors, magnifying lens, fevicol, pieces which were cut from the printed notes, colour printer, pen drive, lamination machine etc. at the place of offence. Ms. Jhaveri has further stated that, it was the applicant who was printing the said counterfeit currency notes at the place of offence and all the three accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the said offence. Ms. Jhaveri has also drawn the attention of the court towards the fact that, the bail application of co-accused Pavan ShriKrushna Banode was rejected by the coordinate bench vide order passed in CRMA No. 5266 of 2025, whereas, co-accused Sagar Dipakbhai Rathod had withdrawn his application which he had preferred vide CRMA No. 6306 of 2025. Thus, Ms. Jhaveri has urged the court to not exercise discretion and reject the application.

5. Upon perusing the investigation papers and more particularly the charge sheet, it appears that Sarthana Police upon having received secret information about counterfeit currency notes being printed for the purpose of circulation in open market at Office No. 406, 4th floor, Apple Square Building,