1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.11201015250002 of 2025 registered with CID Crime Rajkot Zone Police Station, Rajkot, for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of the Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, and Sections 20(2), 21(2), 21(3), 23, 25(1), 25(1)(a), 25(1)(b) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019.
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, further incarceration of the applicant will not benefit the Investigation Officer in any manner. It is further submitted 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 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. Investigation being over, charge-sheet has been filed.
ii. Applicant is a permanent resident of District:Bhavnagar and hence, would be available at the time of trial.
iii. As per the prosecution case, it has been mentioned in the FIR itself that, monies to the tune of Rs.3,26,04,000/-, were paid to co-accused Vivek, out of which, the co-accused Vivek had repaid Rs.2,59,85,000/- to the respected investors.
iv. From the affidavit of the Investigating Officer which came to be filed in Criminal Misc. Application No.55 of 2026 before the Special Judge at Rajkot, it is revealed that out of Rs.6,50,54,000/- which were invested with the applicant and the co-accused, Rs.4,69,29,895/- were repaid/returned, whereas, Rs.4,09,94,793/- remained to be repaid/returned to the investors as on date.
v. As per the case of the prosecution, the settlement which was entered into by the applicant and the co- accused with the mother of the complainant, had failed pursuant to which, present FIR came to be lodged and that, the dispute between the parties was civil in nature which has been given colour of criminal litigation.
vi. Learned APP has submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of 60 investors who had invested with the firm Dwija Financial Solutions which was floated by the applicant and the co-accused, and that, they have lost monies. However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that, out of total invested amounts, Rs.4,69,29,895/- as per the say of the Investigating Officer himself, have been repaid to the investors by way of returns against their investments.
vii. The Investigating Officer would always be at liberty to initiate proceeding against the applicant as well as the co-accused under Section 4 of the GPID Act, to recover the amounts of the investors. viii. The apprehension of the learned APP as regards the applicant if granted bail, he would once again indulge in such or similar offense, can be put to rest by imposing stringent conditions.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Hence, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11201015250002 of 2025 registered with CID Crime Rajkot Zone Police Station, Rajkot, on executing a bail 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 his passport, if any, to the trial court within a week, and if he does not possess a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;
[d] not leave Gujarat till the trial is over, without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;
[e] furnish the present address of his residence to the I.O. and to the Court at the time of execution of the bond together with documentary proof and shall not change his residence without prior intimation to the I.O. and the court;
[f] mark his presence on every Monday before the concerned police station till the trial is over;
[g] not indulge in similar kind of offence hereinafter, for which, he shall file affidavits before the concerned court and the police station;
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 at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
11. Bail bond to be executed before the trial 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 competent 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 enlarging the applicant on regular bail. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
