ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Riyaz Parmar appearing on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4529 of 2026 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 2568 of 2026, learned Advocate Mr. Alinavaz Vakil on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3103 of 2026 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in all these matters.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicants have filed this applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11190009250014 of 2025 registered with Botad Cyber Crime Police Station, District Botad, for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. Learned advocates for the applicants would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicants 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 applicants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicants are 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 has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail to the applicants. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicants as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants 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. Allegation in the FIR being that the accused had through the medium of mule accounts laundered money which were proceeds of the cyber crime.

ii. The FIR specifically being against the mule accounts and whereas it does not appear that there was any investigation qua the source of the money which had come to the mule accounts.

iii. The fact of the parties having transacted inter-se and whereas the actual mule account holders namely Abbas Yasinbhai Khetani and Aliraja Shabbirali Madhvani are not before this Court in this group of petitions, more particularly the amount in question having been laundered through the medium of the account of the above accused and a total of 14 complaints against the above referred accused Khetani and a total of 13 complaints against the above referred accused Madhvani.

iv. The role attributed to the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 4529 of 2026 being of having collected the money from an Angadiya Firm and having send it to other accused. Similar roles being attributed to the applicants of Criminal Misc. Application Nos.2568 of 2026 and 3103 of 2026 also.

v. It does not appear that any of the applicants herein are the principal players of the offence in question. It also does not appear that the applicants have any role to play in the principal offence i.e. with regard to the cyber crime of which the money was the proceeds.

vi. The fact of the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 4529 of 2026 being in custody since 17.12.2025 and the applicants of Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2568 of 2026 and 3103 of 2026 being in custody since 09.11.2025, the charge-sheet having been filed and the applicants not any antecedents.

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 t