Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai, J
MOHSIN NISARAAMAD SHAIKHV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6648 of 2026 | R/CR.MA/6648/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gajendra P Baghel, Shambhukumar
For the Respondents: Soaham Joshi
Regular bail may be granted after the charge-sheet is filed in cyber-fraud cases where the applicant's role is limited and they are a permanent resident, provided stringent conditions are imposed to prevent recidivism.
Headnote:(A) Regular Bail - Cyber Fraud - Role of providing bank account - Where the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, further incarceration is not beneficial to the investigation, especially when the applicant is a permanent resident and can be bound by stringent conditions. (Para 4, 6)
(B) Bail Discretion - Criminal Antecedents - The existence of complaints on the NCCRP portal, in the absence of prior criminal convictions, does not necessarily preclude the grant of bail if the applicant's role is limited to receiving a commission for providing a bank account. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail after the filing of the charge-sheet in a case involving cyber-fraud and misuse of bank accounts.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural initiation of a regular bail application under bnss following the filing of a charge-sheet in a cyber-fraud case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the necessity of continued incarceration versus the applicant's willingness to abide by court conditions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evaluation of bail eligibility based on residency, lack of criminal antecedents, and the specific role of the accused in the fraud. (Para 6) |
| 4. exercise of judicial discretion to grant bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent further offenses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 11210062250076 of 2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Surat City, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008.
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, further incarceration of the applicant will not benefit the Investigation Officer in any manner. 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. Learned advocate upon instructions submits that the applicant will remain within the State of Gujarat during the trial.
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 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 applicant is a permanent resident of District:Surat, hence, would be available at the time of trial.
ii. Though the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, however, three complaints have been filed in the NCCRP Portal in different states, against the bank account of the applicant.
iii.As per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have received commission of Rs.10,000/- for providing his bank account for deposit of cyber-fraud monies.
iv.As per the prosecution case, though the cyber-fraud amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was deposited in the account of the applicant and the same was withdrawn by him and co-accused-Saud Zunaid Kureshi and after holding back the amounts of the commission, the remaining amount was forwarded to the absconding accused Huzair @ Tigar.
v. The investigation being over, charge-sheet has been filed.
vi.The apprehension of the learned APP as regards the applicant if granted bail, he would once again indulge in such or similar offense, can be put to rest by imposing stringent conditions.
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
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant 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 discr
