Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 150 (GUJ)

Jayntibhai Hirabhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2026-03-05

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2026
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Mr.Ashish Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11201005250003/2025 registered with CID Crime Vadodara Zone Police Station, District: Vadodara City, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 114 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(2), 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge- sheet is filed 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. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 6. This Court heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. The allegation in the FIR being that the applicant and other accused having misappropriated Government funds to the tune of approximately the amount of around Rs.60,00,000/-. ii. The allegation further being that while the project was to ensure that every household in the concerned villages receives water through pipeline, which would be installed under the scheme in question and whereas using inflated bills etc., the accused had earned more than they were supposed to earn. iii. The role attributed to the present applicant being the contractor who had executed the work in question. iii. The role attributed to the present applicant being the contractor who had executed the work in question. It would appear in this regard that the present applicant is not the only accused i.e. to state that the present applicant does not appear to be the only beneficiaries of the alleged transaction, more particularly even the Government Officers, who had verified the aspect of work having been done etc. having been arraigned as accused. iv. It would appear that as far as the applicant is concerned, the allegation being that he had sublet the work without any permission and whereas it also appears that probably the work has been done yet one of the allegation is of having subletting the work without any authority. v. This Court has also considered that the present applicant has been in custody since 10.09.2025 and the I.O. has laid the charge-sheet. vi. This Court has also considered the voluntary statement made by learned Advocate for the applicant that the applicant would deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with the learned trial Court as a precondition of release, more particularly to show his bona fide, without prejudice to all rights and contentions available with the applicant. vii. Considering the role attributed to the present applicant and also having regard to the fact that the charge-sheet is laid and the voluntary statement made by learned Advocate, this Court is inclined to consider this application. viii. The fact of co-accused having been released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 26576 of 2025. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.No.11201005250003/2025 registered with CID Crime Vadodara Zone Police Station, District: Vadodara City, on depositing an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as a precondition of releasing the applicant and on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; [f] mark presence once a month for a period of six months before the concerned police station. 9. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall be invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt and whereas the learned Trial Court shall take an appropriate decision as regards disbursing the amount in question as per final order passed in the trial. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 12. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.