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. 11191067250184 pf 2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

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 applicant has no past antecedent. The applicant has opened business account with the co-accused and has never used such bank account. 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 and co-accused opened bank account in the name of Polincar Pvt. Ltd and an amount of Rs.6.19 crore came to be transferred from the complainant and other witnesses during two months in this account and thereafter did not return the same. 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 13.12.2025;

(3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

(4) Offence is triable by JMFC Court;

(5) He is not named in the FIR but based on the statement of co accused, subsequently, he has been arraigned as an accused.

(6) No past antecedent;.

(7) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time.

(8) Perusing the FIR, allegation against the applicant is that, he has opened bank account for business purpose with the co accused, except this, he has never used that account. No money trail is found. No any monetary gain is received by the applicant. Prosecution failed to show any ground that his custody is required. Case is based on documentary evidence.

7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore