R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 6467 of 2025 ========================================================== SURESCHANDRA S/O BATESHWARNATH SHUKLA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR I H SYED, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR YH MOTIRAMANI(3720) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHREYA OJHA(14681) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BHADRISH RAJU, WITH MR NIMIT Y SHUKLA(8338) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 09/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of present successive bail application under Section 483 of the BNS, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191011240254 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant being senior citizen is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Case is based on documentary evidence. Allegation as per the FIR is that, from 2018 to 2024, the alleged proprietorship firms and partnership firms for their own benefits at place where they had not worked, had forged bills and sent to the co-accused and in collusion and connivance with other co-accused, uploaded the said forged bills in the system and got 616 bills and paid Rs.12,12,08,770/- in 14 proprietorship firms and partnership firms and thereby, committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is submitted that, R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is proprietor of the firm – Transcare Logistics, which is managed by his son Pravesh Shukla. The said firm got the registered as a vendor and used to manage business with Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. The employees of the complainant company have committed systematic fraud and the applicant is made scapegoat. No direct money trail or involvement of the applicant is found. He had not actively participated in any forgery or in any offence. Whatever the amount credited is in the bank account of Amit Mishra, and after withdrawal either in cash or through UPI, transferred to the employees of the Complainant Company. Amit Mishra is the beneficiary of the entire amount and his wife is already released on bail. As per the allegation of the complainant, Amit Mishra is a kingpin and is indulged in fraudulent activities. Offence is triable by JMFC Court and nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 06.10.2024. Trial is yet to be commenced. The applicant has no past antecedent. Lastly, he has relied on the order passed by this court in CRMA No.14794/2023 and stated that, merely financial fraud is there, and huge amount is involved is not a ground to refuse the bail. It is further submitted that the applicant and his son both are in jail since long and therefore, he is unable to make any deposit or show his bonafide as he has not received a single rupee. It is further submitted that, this is a question of liberty and Court has to consider her liberty. Other accused persons have shown bonafide, but there is no hard and fast rule to secure the liberty. In view of the above, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has requested that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 3. Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has opposed the present bail application and submitted that, the applicant and his son both are indulged in the offence. He has forged various invoices for various works done with Reliance Jio Inforcom Ltd. The applicant is R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 proprietor of Transcare Logistics and during October 2019 to February, 2023, he forged various bills and received an amount of Rs.1,52,57,849/- in his firm’s account and major chunk of the amount has been transferred in his account and his family members. Merely chargesheet is filed, is not a ground to release the accused on bail. Though the applicant having no any work, in the pretext of repairs and maintenance in collusion and connivance with each other, various fake bills have been raised. 4. Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that, the applicant has siphoned off the amount; merely filing of the chargesheet is not a ground to allow the bail application. Considering the seriousness of the offence and involvement of the applicant, application may not be entertained. Applicant is a lack of bonafide. Even still investigation is going on and amount is yet to be traced out, he requested to dismiss the present application. Son of the applicant is a kingpin and in total 12 crores received by raising fraudulent bills. The complainant is a private limited company and it is a public money. Allegation of forgery is also revealed against the applicant. The applicant has wrongly received Rs.1.52 crore. Merely the applicant is senior citizen is not a ground to allow the bail. By committing systematic fraud, the applicant has siphoned off the amount and to stay behind the bar for 4 to 6 months, and then without showing any bonafide, he cannot claim parity as of right. 5. This Court has heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for both the sides. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed; Applicant who is senior citizen in jail since 06.10.2024. From the record, it appears that, the complainant – Arjun R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 Pramodbhai Dudhatra is serving as a Deputy Manager, Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., and has lodged the FIR stating therein that, from March, 2018 to June, 2024, the alleged proprietorship firms and partnership firms for their own benefits at place where they had not worked and without executing any contract or work order with the maintenance work of the towers with Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd., had forged bills and sent to the co-accused and in collusion and connivance with other co-accused, uploaded the said forged bills in the system as genuine one and got 616 bills and paid Rs.12,12,08,770/- in 14 proprietorship firms and partnership firms and thereby, committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Case is based on documentary evidence. 7. It is true that involvement of the accused is found on record. Learned counsel for the complainant has raised grievance that merely the applicant is senior citizen is not entitled to claim any concession or bail as of right because he is involved in an offence; that by misusing his knowledge, siphoned off the huge amount and thereby he engaged himself in the commercial venture and enterprise. But the fact remains that the applicant is a senior citizen and his son was looking after the day to day affairs of the firm and his name being misused. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts as well as the fact that the chargsheet is filed and other accused are released on bail as they have shown their bonafide or concession given to them. Though the applicant is involved in the offence, but the applicant is a senior citizen and keeping in mind the provisions of Section 437 of Cr.P.C., sensitive and sympathetic view is required to be adopted. However, apprehension raised by learned APP qua tampering the evidence and flight risk, may be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. 9. The Court has to consider the bail application only on the ground that the applicant is senior citizen and accused persons are shifting blame to other co-accused, who are yet to be either arrested or in the custody. In R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 view of the same, present application deserves consideration. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing further on merit, 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. 11191011240254 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad on executing a personal bond of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fifty Thousand only) with one solvent 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 & 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 to leave State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned police station once in a month for a period of six months; (f) furnish Aadhar card, contact number, 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) shall not directly or indirectly contact the witnesses connected to the present case. 11. 11. 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 R/CR.MA/6467/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/07/2025 above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Undertaking is accepted and ordered to be taken on record. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/07/2025 14:54:55