logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 GHC 451 print Preview print Next print
Court : In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Case No : R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 21146 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Parties : Kamleshbhai Shivabhai @ Shirilbhai Macwan Versus State Of Gujarat
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Minhaj M. Shaikh(6847), Advocate. For the Respondent: Hardik Mehta, APP.
Date of Judgment : 08-10-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 120(B), 114, 465, 467, 468, 471 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 420, 120(B), 114, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Regular bail
- Pre‑trial detention
- Personal liberty
- Surety
- Conditions of bail

3. Summary:
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS for offences under the IPC, claiming innocence. The State opposed, citing the seriousness of the alleged conspiracy to forge job letters and obtain money. The court examined factors such as the nature of the offence, lack of prior record, completion of investigation, and the non‑capital nature of the charges. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized bail as a rule and personal liberty under Article 21. Finding no compelling reason to keep the accused detained, the court granted regular bail with a personal bond and several conditions, including surrender of passport and deposit of a specified amount.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

[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. 11215025260024 of 2026 registered with Sojitra Police Station, for the offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 114, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. 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 is very much involved in the present offence and 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) The applicant is behind the bar since 10.05.2026;

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

          (4) The allegation against the present applicant is that the applicant, along with the other co-accused, hatched a conspiracy under the pretext of securing work permit visas for Canada for the complainant and other witnesses, provided forged job letters and visas, and obtained an amount of Rs.14.15 lakh. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.5 lakh was deposited in the applicant's account. However, the applicant has filed an undertaking stating that she will deposit the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- before the concerned Trial Court, as the applicant has already been paid Rs.1,50,000/-.

          (5) Offence is triable by JMFC Court and none of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ;

          (6) No past antecedents.

          (7) Prosecution has failed to point out the circumstances to continue or prolong his incarceration;

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

[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, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11215025260024 of 2026 registered with Sojitra Police Station, on executing a personal 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/she shall;

          (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

          (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

          (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

          (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

          (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

          (f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court;

          (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

          (h) to deposit Rs.3,50,000/- before the concerned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of her release.

[9.0] 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 issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

[10.0] 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.

[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

 
  CDJLawJournal