IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -

AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1882 of 2026 ========================================================

JAYSUKH @J.D. DEVCHANDBHAI KACHHDIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR MALAV MULANI FOR MR KRUSHALKUMAR D SHELADIYA(8017) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MEDHA N PANDYA(6171) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 15/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Malav Mulani for learned Advocate Mr. K.D. Sheladiya appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Ms. Medha Pandya for the 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. 11210062250054 of 2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. as well as under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as well as under Section 3 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In financial Establishments) Act, 2003 and under Section 66(d) of IT Act, 2000.

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 and learned Advocate appearing for original 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. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The allegation being that the complainant had been lured to invest amount in certain schemes and whereas the complainant has not received any return for his investment.

(ii) It would appear in this regard that prima facie the present appears to be a Multi Level Marketing Scheme where the present applicant appears to be a member in the scheme where money was to be deposited in three different E Coins namely, PLCU Coin, Aura Coin and BDLT Token and whereas it also appears that an amount i.e. around Rs. 51,00,000/- which has been invested by the applicant, has not come to the present applicant.

(iii) It would also prima facie appear that the money have gone to the persons in the chain, who are at a higher level than the present applicant.

(iv) It also prima facie appears that apart from some commission, which is also not specified in the complaint, the present applicant may not have received any specific amount.

(v) This Court has also considered the fact that the present applicant is in custody since 09.10.2025.

(vi) The charge-sheet having been filed by the Investigating Officer and apart from the present FIR the applicant having no other antecedents.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of San