Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. R. Mengdey, J
VISHALSINH PRAVINSINH CHARANV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 10034 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kishan H Daiya
For the Respondents: Kanva Antani
Grant of successive regular bail is contingent upon the period of incarceration, the failure to frame charges in a timely manner, and the assessment of the accused's likelihood to flee or tamper with evidence.
Headnote:The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with FIR C.R. No.11191067240127 of 2024 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 61, 204 of the B.N.S. and Section 66-D of the IT Act. The case involves allegations of receiving money and transmitting it via USDT to foreign countries. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody since November 2024 and charges had not yet been framed by the trial court. The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the duration of incarceration. The court reasoned that bail consideration must balance the prima facie case, the availability of the accused during trial, and the risk of tampering with witnesses, referencing the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40. Rule is made absolute.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for regular bail and opposing contentions regarding the accused's role in cybercrime. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. consideration of the period of incarceration and the status of charge framing in determining bail eligibility. (Para 5) |
| 3. factors governing the grant of bail including prima facie case and risk of flight or tampering. (Para 6) |
| 4. grant of bail subject to specific conditions to ensure trial attendance and maintain law and order. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191067240127 of 2024 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, District:Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 61, 204 of the B.N.S. 66-D of IT Act.
2. Heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent – State.
2.1 Rule. Learned PP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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.
4. Per contra, the application is opposed by learned APP for the respondent contending that the present applicant has actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The present applicant had received money involved in the present offence and thereafter had transmitted the said money through USDT to the foreign countries. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. Earlier, the applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.10942 of 2025 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this court vide order dated 1.7.2025. While permitting the applicant to withdraw the said application, liberty was granted to the applicant to file an application afresh after a period of nine months if the trial did not commence by the said time. As per the information furnished by learned APP, the charge has not been framed against the present applicant before learned trial court. The present applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence in the month of November, 2024 and since then the applicant is in custody. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.
6. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in judicial custody.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be release
