Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi In Rs 45 Lakh Extortion Case

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi In Rs 45 Lakh Extortion Case

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has granted regular bail to Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi, who was in judicial custody in connection with an alleged extortion case. The order, passed by Justice M. R. Mengdey, comes after the completion of the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet by the D.C.B Police Station in Surat City.

Case Background and Allegations

The applicant, Ajay Rameshbhai Trivedi, faced serious allegations of threatening a businessman. According to the FIR (C.R. No. 11210015250035 of 2025), the applicant purportedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences if a ransom amount of Rs 45 lakhs was not paid. The applicant allegedly claimed he would report the complainant's company to the Gujarat Pollution Control Board for discharging dangerous effluents in Surat, using this as leverage to demand the illicit payment.

Arguments from the Bar

Counsel for the applicant argued that Trivedi maintains a good reputation in society and that further incarceration serves no useful purpose, given that the investigation has concluded and the chargesheet has been filed. The applicant expressed readiness to abide by all court-imposed conditions.

Conversely, the State, represented by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), vehemently opposed the bail plea. The prosecution highlighted the applicant’s history of similar offenses and pointed to recent judicial reprimands, including a heavy cost of Rs 20 lakhs imposed on the applicant by a Division Bench of the High Court for filing a frivolous Public Interest Litigation. Counsel for the original complainant reinforced these concerns, noting that the role of the applicant was central to the extortion scheme, distinguishing him from co-accused individuals who were allegedly acting only as collectors.

Legal Analysis and Observations

Justice M. R. Mengdey noted that the primary factors for consideration—a prima facie case, the availability of the accused for trial, and the risk of witness tampering—must be balanced. Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in * Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. * (2012), the court weighed the nature of the allegations against the fact that the applicant had been in custody since February 2025.

Key observations from the judgment include: * "The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed." * "The present applicant had made telephone calls to the first informant and had threatened him that if he did not pay the amount of Rs.45 lakhs to him, he would make a complaint to the Gujarat Pollution Control Board." * "Having regard to the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the present applicant... the present application deserves consideration."

Final Ruling and Conditions

The High Court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicant’s release upon executing a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of the same amount. The release is subject to stringent conditions, including: 1. A prohibition on entering Surat City until the conclusion of the trial. 2. The surrender of his passport. 3. A requirement to mark his presence at the concerned police station once a month for six months. 4. An explicit instruction to refrain from any threats or evidence tampering.

The Court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by these prima facie observations during the subsequent proceedings, ensuring an impartial trial for all parties involved.