Oral Order

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Virat Popat for learned advocate Mr.Jay Purohit appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Aditya Jadeja 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. 11191010230171/2023 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5 of the Gambling Act, Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 201 of the IPC, Sections 66-C, 66-D, 75 of the Information Technology Act, Sections 23(e), 23(a), 23(f), 23(g), 23(h) of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956.

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. The allegation against the accused is of committing offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 etc. of the IPC, under the provisions of the I.T. Act and under the provisions of SEBI Act, 1956.

          ii. The role attributed to the present applicant being that he was the main coordinator more particularly the allegation being that the accused had created a website where they were indulging in dabba trading i.e. trading without any license etc. and thereby violated the guidelines under the SEBI Act.

          iii. Allegations further being that for the purpose of facilitating transfer of money, shell companies were created and whereas, accounts were opened in the name of shell companies and monies were transacted through the said shell companies.

          iv. The allegation against the present applicant is that he had coordinated the creation of the shell companies and whereas, it is alleged that the entire fraud is valued at around Rs.2300 crores.

          v. As against the same, this Court has noticed that all the other accused including the accused who was managing the affairs of the website, have been released by the learned Coordinate Benches.

          vi. This Court has also noticed that in a quashing petition preferred by the co-accused, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted stay against the trial with regard to offences under the SEBI Act.

          vii. This Court has also considered the fact that while the fraud is alleged to be valued at around Rs.2300 crores, yet, there is not a single victim who has alleged that any loss whatsoever has been caused to him.

          viii.It also appears that the persons whose credentials had been forged for the purpose of creating account / opening a company etc. have, at some point of time, received some or other commission, therefore, even such persons have not alleged anything against the present applicant.

          ix. It also appears that the present applicant had been absconding for a substantially long period of time and whereas, it appears that the applicant could be arrested only after the red corner notice had been issued against him.

          x. As against the same, this Court has noticed the fact that the applicant is in custody since 05.09.2025, charge-sheet having been filed and whereas, there are no other antecedents against the present applicant more particularly there being three antecedents, of which in one, the present applicant has been acquitted i.e. for offence punishable under Section 323, the applicant had been imposed with a fine for an offence under the prevention of Gambling Act and a compliant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as of now, pending.

          xi. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that when all the co- accused including the accused who was managing the website have been released by learned Coordinate Benches and whereas, since it appears that trial has been stayed for the offences under the SEBI Act in case of co-accused, this Court is inclined to consider this application, albeit with appropriate safeguards.

          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. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11191010230171/2023 registered with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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 fortnight for a period of six months and thereafter 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.