SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Mahesh s/o. Kishan bhagwan motevar – Appellant 
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent 
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS) NO. 8184 of 2026
Decided on : 27-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR HARSHIT S. TOLIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) MR. MAYUR V DHOTARE(7019)
For the Respondent: MR JK SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Harshit Tolia with learned advocates Mr. Chaitanya Joshi and Mr. Mayur Dhotare for the applicant and learned APP Mr.J.K. for the respondent – State.

2. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused in C.R. No.166 of 2017 registered with Nilambaug Police station, Bhavnagar under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of IPC and under Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 has preferred this application praying for modification / deletion of condition Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 vide order dated 12.01.2022 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Court, (Designated Court), Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.2406 of 2021, more particularly, submitting that the said conditions have prejudiced the present applicant. It would appear in this regard that vide the said order, the applicant had been enlarged on regular bail in connection with the offence in question and whereas, it is submitted that while releasing the applicant, the learned Sessions Court had directed the applicant to produce Bank Guarantee of Rs.4,25,00,000/- in favour of the District Court, Rajkot, that is half of the amount which was found due to be paid to the investors by the applicant within a period of seven days from the date of release. The conditions also inter alia stipulated that in case the applicant does not deposit the said amount then the applicant would surrender before the jail authorities and in case he does not surrender, the Investigating Officer was directed to arrest the present applicant.

3. It appears in this regard, that while he had been facing various FIRs with regard to the self same allegations after having been released, vide order dated 12.01.2022, the present applicant, had been arrested by the Karnataka Police, in connection with an offence registered at Chikkaballapura and was in custody from 21.08.2022 to 10.01.2023 in connection with the said offence. After having been released, the present applicant had approached the learned Sessions Court for extension of time and whereas vide an order dated 07.08.2023, the learned Sessions Court had rejected such an application. It would also appear in this regard that from 07.08.2023, till the present application is preferred, the applicant had not taken any steps qua the present offence concerned and whereas it would appear that in connection with a similar FIR, the applicant had been arrested by the Dahod Police on 06.03.2026 and is at present in custody of the Sub-Jail, Dahod. It also appears as per the submissions of learned senior advocate that the present applicant, has been released by the learned Sessions Court, Dahod vide an order dated 11.03.2026 in connection with the said offence and whereas, since the present applicant, was apprehending arrest in connection with the present offence, the applicant was in process and as of now has deposited the amount of Rs.29,24,00,310/- as directed by the learned Sessions Court and whereas, appropriate steps for being released, is being undertaken.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tolia would submit that present applicant, who was Managing Director of one Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited, and other group of Companies, was facing 32 FIRs all over the country and whereas, in all the FIRs, the present applicant has been enlarged on regular bail. It is submitted that as far as the order dated 12.01.2022 the present order, has laid down certain conditions which the present applicant is not able to fulfill on account of various proceedings and whereas in case the conditions are not modified, the present applicant would continue to remain in jail, more particularly, learned Senior Advocate submitting that as of now, the present applicant has been under incarceration for more than 7 years cumulatively in connection with the FIRs referred to above. Learned senior advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to two aff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top