Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 61 (GUJ)

Dilipbhai Jayantibhai Mehta v. State of Gujarat

2026-02-05

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2026
ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.I.H.Syed for learned advocate Mr.Aniq Kadri 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. 11210048210445/2021 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 114 of the IPC. 3.1. The applicant having been arraigned as an accused in connection with the aforementioned offence, had approached this Court for being released on regular bail and whereas, the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 06.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No.11190/2021 had directed the release of the present applicant more particularly upon condition that the applicant would deposit an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- before the learned Sessions Court within a period of two months. 3.2. It would appear that the applicant could not comply with the said condition for a substantially long period of time inasmuch as, out of Rs.45,00,000/-, the applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and whereas, he could not deposit the remaining amount, resulting in the original complainant filing an application for cancellation of bail before this Court and whereas, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20261/2021 had directed the cancellation of bail. 3.3. It would appear that the present applicant had challenged the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench before the Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.15706/2023 and whereas, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 had confirmed the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench canceling the bail. It also requires to be observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court had further granted liberty in favour of the applicant that if the application for regular bail is preferred, the same would be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 3.4. It also requires to be observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court had further granted liberty in favour of the applicant that if the application for regular bail is preferred, the same would be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 3.4. It would appear that the applicant had thereafter surrendered on 24.06.2024 (though mentioned in the application as 16.10.2024) and whereas, the applicant had preferred an application for being released on regular bail before the learned Sessions Court and whereas, the learned Sessions Court vide an order dated 10.12.2024 had rejected the application in question. The applicant being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court by preferring the present application. 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. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. While it is true that the applicant could not comply with the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench releasing him on regular bail, yet, it would also appear that the applicant being in custody from the month of June, 2024 till date, would clearly reflect his inability to pay, rather than the lack of intention to pay. ii. ii. To this Court, it would appear that the applicant having been released on bail substantively, having tried to comply with the condition partly i.e. by depositing Rs.10,00,000/-, yet, not depositing the remaining amount and the present applicant being in custody for more than one and a half years after the bail got canceled, as noticed hereinabove, would clearly indicate that insofar as the applicant is concerned, the condition of deposit may have been onerous. iii.This Court has also considered the fact that even in the original order i.e. order dated 06.08.2021 whereby the applicant had been released on regular bail, while the applicant had himself shown his willingness to deposit the amount in question and had deposited the money partly, yet, non-deposit had resulted in the bail being canceled. iv. This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the erstwhile IPC and as of now, is in custody since one and a half years after cancellation of bail and as submitted by learned Senior Advocate, cumulatively in custody for more than two years, this Court is inclined to consider this application. 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, ( 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. 11210048210445/2021 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 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 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.