[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 23/04/2026 in R/CR.A/935/2025 ]

========================================================

IA ORDER

1. Speaking to Minutes is allowed.

2. In Para – 3 of the order dated 23.04.2026, the words mentioned as “It is further noted that the applicant has furnished surety under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in compliance with the order passed by the learned Trial Court.” are replaced with the words “The applicant was directed to furnish surety under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in compliance with the order passed by the learned Trial Court.”.

3. Rest of the order shall remain as it is.

4. Registry to issue fresh writ accordingly.

5. Speaking to Minutes stands disposed of.

(S. V. PINTO,J)

F.S.KAZI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026

In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 of 2025

========================================================

HITENDRAKUMAR UGALCHAND GADHECHA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

========================================================

Appearance:

MR JEET B KARIA(11991) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2

MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

========================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

Date : 23/04/2026

IA ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet B. Karia for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to file a fresh application before the Trial Court.

2. The applicant has filed the present application seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by him before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, in connection with Criminal Case No. 8403 of 2009. The applicant had earlier preferred a common application seeking refund of amounts deposited in 13 matters; however, by order dated 17.12.2025, the learned Trial Court disposed of the said application, observing that since the appeals were pending before this Court, refund of the deposited amounts would not be appropriate, and further on the ground that a single application had been filed for multiple matters.

3. As per the record, the amount in question was deposited during the pendency of the proceedings when a non-bailable warrant had been issued, and the applicant was released on bail on 19.01.2022. Thereafter, upon conclusion of the trial, the applicant came to be acquitted by order dated 20.06.2024. It is further noted that the applicant has furnished surety under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in compliance with the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. In view of the provisions of Sections 441, 445 and 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where an amount is deposited by way of cash security in lieu of execution of bond, and there is no order of forfeiture nor any subsisting liability for adjustment towards fine, compensation or costs, such amount may be considered for refund by the concerned trial Court upon appropriate application being made.

5. Since the question of actual deposit, verification of records, existence of any forfeiture proceedings, and entitlement to refund are matters to be examined by the Court where such amount was deposited, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to approach the concerned trial Court by filing an appropriate application for release/refund of the amount so deposited.

6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the claim for refund, the present application stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the concerned trial Court for refund / release of the cash amount deposited during trial. Upon such application being filed, the concerned trial Court shall verify the record, ascertain whether the trial has concluded, whether fresh surety has been furnished, and whether there exists any legal impediment including forfeiture