Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 54 (GUJ)

Rajendrakumar Manharlal Shah v. State of Gujarat

2026-02-04

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2026
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Girish Das on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State. 2. Since allegations levelled against the present applicant in all the present FIRs are similar, the applications have been taken up for hearing jointly . 3. Rule . Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred these applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with different FIRs registered with Fatehganj Police Station, District: Vadodara for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the applications preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The details of the FIRs are as under: 5. It is the case in the FIR that the applicant, was having a visa consultancy agency, had promised visa of different countries in particular Canada to the complainant and victims total 99 in number and having taken money from them for getting the same and whereas the applicant not returning the money, inspite of the complainant and the victim not getting appropriate visa. 6. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr. Das on behalf of the applicant would submit that the applicant was bonafide visa agent more particularly it is submitted that the applicant while he had agreed with the complainant and witnesses to procure visa on their behalf for a larger sum, had taken only smaller sum from the victims and whereas the victims were to pay the remainder of the money upon the victims getting employment and getting salary in the foreign country. Learned Advocate would further submit that in case of all of the victims, the applicant had entered into an agreement inter alia stating that the applicant in case the visa is not procured, would return back the entire amount without deducting any expenses. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, in case of all the victims that is the complainant and the victims, their process for getting a visa had been done by the present applicant and whereas in all the cases, the visa applications had been rejected by the agencies of the concerned country. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, in case of all the victims that is the complainant and the victims, their process for getting a visa had been done by the present applicant and whereas in all the cases, the visa applications had been rejected by the agencies of the concerned country. Learned Advocate would submit that thus it is not a case of no work was done by the present applicant rather it is a case where inspite of the best efforts of the present applicant, he could not obtain visa in favour of the complainant and the victim. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, it is also not the case that the present applicant had siphoned away money, which he had with him. It is submitted that out of 110 witnesses and complainant, the present applicant had returned part of the mone y to around 20 complainants /witnesses totaling to around Rs. 55 lacs. It is thus submitted by learned Advocate that the fact of returning back the money itself shows that the applicant had no malicious intention. Learned Advocate would submit that in any case the applicant, just to show his bonafide more particularly to ensure that he will not abscond, he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 11 lacs within a period of two months from the date of his release. Thus submitting it is submitted that this Court may exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the applications may be dismissed. 7 . The present applications are being vehemently objected to by learned APP on behalf of the respondent- State that the present is a case of large scale fraud, which total to around Rs.4,65,00,000/-. Learned APP would submit that apart from the present applications, which are around 12 in number, there are other antecedents of the present applicant being involved in similar offence considering which learned APP would request this Court not to entertain the applications and not to release the present applicant on regular bail. 8. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet papers as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court. 9. 8. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet papers as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court. 9. This Court has also considered the following aspects: (i) The fact of the applicant, having entered into agreement with each of the complainant / victim paying the money as regards the applicant ensuring that visa would be obtained in favour of the complainants/ victims failing which he would return back the amount in question. (ii) While it is clear that the applicant could not return the money in question, yet it would also be required to be observed that the same, may not translate into an offence or criminal breach of trust since the issue was only with regard to return of money and not with regard to fraud. (iii) The fact of the applicant having processed the file of each of the complainant /victim and the files of each of the complainants/ victims having been rejected by the concerned agency of the country in question reflecting that the applicant had carried out some process and the applicant did not have any intention to defraud the complainant / victim from the inception. (iv) The fact of the applicant having attempted to repay some money back i.e. to the tune of Rs. 55 lacs to around 20 of the complainants / witnesses, which aspect is also admitted by the Investigating Officer. (v) The fact of the applicant being in custody since last more than two years and four months and whereas the trial having not proceeded at all. (vi) The fact of the applicant being ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 11 lacs within a period of two months from the date of release to show his bonafide. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. Hence, the present applications are allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIRs registered with Fatehganj Police Station, District: Vadodara on executing a bond of Rs. 5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lac ) cumulatively with local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] deposit an amount of Rs.11 Lacs with the learned trial Court within a period of two months from the date of his release on regular bail. [b] Leanred Trial Court to take appropriate steps with regard to disbursement / apportionment of the amount as per the final order of the trial. [c] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [d] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [e] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [f] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [g] Mark his presence in the concerned Police Station once in a month in each FIR for a period of one year month. [h] 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 residential address without prior permission of the Sessions Court; 13. 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 Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 14 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. 14 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. 15 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. 16. The application are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.