Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
Patel Dhruv Daksheshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 11616 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhargav P Dangar, Hitendra D Rajput
For the Respondents: HK Patel
The court established that in cases where the investigation is complete and the alleged offences are not punishable by life imprisonment or death, the principle of 'bail as rule and jail as exception' should be upheld, provided the accused poses no flight risk and the detention would otherwise amount to pre-trial punishment.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), 314, 111(3)(4), 336(3), 340, 339, 319, 212
(B) - Information Technology Amendment Act, 2000 - Sections 66(c) and 66(d) - Regular bail - Factors for grant of bail - Discretionary power to grant bail must be exercised by considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, potential for tampering with evidence, apprehension of abscondence, and the character of the accused, while balancing these against the public interest (Para 5).
(B) Bail Jurisprudence - Personal Liberty - Constitutional guarantee under Article 21 - Principles of “bail as rule and jail as exception” - Prolonged pre-trial detention without conclusion of trial acts as a form of pre-trial conviction - Judicial discretion must prioritize the prompt release of the accused when investigations are completed and chargesheets are filed, provided the accused does not pose a flight risk (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed an application for regular bail after the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet. The accused was alleged to have been involved in criminal conspiracy and fraudulent activities resulting in the misappropriation of a substantial sum of money through multiple electronic accounts. The applicant contended that the investigation was finalized, no further recovery was pending, and the applicant possessed a clear criminal record.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation had concluded, and the charge sheet was filed. None of the alleged offences were punishable by death or life imprisonment. Considering the lack of prior criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial process would inevitably involve a significant duration, the court determined that continued detention was unwarranted.
Issues: The central issue was whether the applicant, despite the gravity of the alleged financial offences, should be granted regular bail given the progress of the investigation and the constitutional right to personal liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the investigation is complete and the offences do not attract the highest punitive measures, the principle of personal liberty overrides the need for continued incarceration as a punitive measure before trial. The court emphasized that pre-trial detention serves only to secure the presence of the accused, and where such security can be maintained through stringent conditions, bail is appropriate.
Result: Application allowed; applicant granted regular bail subject to specified conditions.
ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11215041250017 of 2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Ananad, for the offences under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 61(2), 314, 111(3)(4), 336(3), 340, 339, 319, 212(B) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2000 .
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. The allegations against the present applicant are that, along with the co-accused, he hatched a criminal conspiracy and indulged in cyber fraud, thereby cheating various persons and misappropriating an amount of Rs. 7,70,20,19,858/- through 149 accounts. It is further alleged that the father and mother of the present applicant used as many as 1,496 bank accounts for carrying out such activities. In connection therewith, 795 complaints have been registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP), and 30 FIRs have been registered in different States concerning these accounts. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail application. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.
[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.
[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:
(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(2) Applicant is behind the bar since 05.04.2026;
(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(4) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ;
(5) No past antecedent and offence is triable by the JMFC;.
(6) The present applicant is arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the complaint. The allegation against him is that an amount of Rs. 1,39,84,190/- was credited to his bank account and that 16 complaints have been registered against him on the NCCRP Portal. Except for the aforesaid allegation, no specific role is attributed to the present applicant. The other allegations are directed mainly against his father and mother. Insofar as the complaints registered against them in different States through the NCCRP Portal are concerned, the same shall proceed in accordance with law, and the competent authoriti
