R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7706 of 2025 ========================================================== VERONICA ANDREW ANNIKA LETHABO Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 27/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11193063230010 of 2023 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Amreli, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 66(d) of the IT Act. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is a lady accused, and the offence is triable by the Magistrate. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish solvent surety, and undertakes that until the trial is over, she will not leave the country. It is further R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 submitted that the commencement of the trial will take its own time. He, therefore, submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that the applicant is very much involved in the offence. It is submitted that this is a successive bail application and the earlier application was withdrawn by the applicant. The present application has been filed without there being any change in circumstances. It is further submitted that the applicant is trying to evade the trial and is not cooperating in the proceedings. The applicant has committed fraud under the pretext of a gift. The applicant sent messages in the name of the Income Tax Department and Customs Department to get a parcel worth Rs. 14,09,000/- released into her account, thereby committing forgery by using forged documents. She is also in possession of two different fake passports from two different countries, one from Nigeria and another from South Africa, and in this regard, another case has already been registered against the applicant. If the present applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that she may tamper with the evidence or abscond from the trial. Therefore, present application may be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the record, it is worth mentioning that the earlier bail application, after being argued at length, was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty reserved to file a fresh R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 application once material witnesses were examined during the trial. It appears that there are a total of 14 witnesses in the present case, out of which five witnesses have been examined, and one witness has been dropped by the learned APP. There is no possibility of delay in the trial. However, without there being any change in circumstances, the present successive bail application has been filed, and the learned advocate for the applicant has failed to explain any change in circumstances. 6. Coming to the facts of the case, it appears that the accused, using her financial means through M. No. 6909639361 and M. No. 6909220245, repeatedly sent messages to the complainant, gained the complainant’s trust, and with the intention to deceive, prepared false documents of government securities as bail sureties from two different departments of the Government of India. The accused also created fake accounts on social media applications such as WhatsApp and Instagram using false identities, and by giving false promises of valuable gifts, made the complainant believe that a gift had arrived and that, to release it, the complainant would need to pay taxes to the Income Tax Department and charges to the Customs Department. On this pretext, the accused fraudulently and dishonestly obtained a total amount of Rs. 14,09,000/- from the complainant’s bank account through various transactions, thereby committing a serious offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. 7. It further appears that mobile phones and SIM cards used R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 by the accused have been recovered, and there is prima facie evidence indicating that the accused committed the offence through chats and emails. It appears that the accused holds two different passports and visas from two different countries, namely Nigerian Passport No. A07644089 and South African Passport No. 103966925, and that information has been sought through the IB (Intelligence Bureau). It also appears that the applicant/accused is not a citizen of India, and if released on bail, there is a high possibility that she may abscond from the trial. Furthermore, if the applicant/accused is released on regular bail, there is a strong likelihood that she may commit similar offences again and may pose a threat to the life and property of the general public. 8. It appears that the present application came to be filed on the same ground and there is no change in circumstances. Once, the matter was withdrawn or dismissed on merit and there is no change in circumstances, present successive application by the appellant on the same ground is not permissible only on a specific ground that a considerable time have been passed or chargesheet has been filed. Even otherwise, there is no bar to entertain successive bail appeal, but the Court has to assign the grounds to entertain the appeal and to exercise the jurisdiction. Here in the instant case, the applicant has failed to make out any case. It is required to be mentioned that the appellant may file successive bail application, but it does not mean that the Court is taken for granted as and when bail application preferred, it should be allowed. Further, there is no change in circumstances. In this regard, reference is made to the decisions R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 of the Apex Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2017 (5) SCC 406 and Navin Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 (2) SCC (Cri.) 809 as filing of the chargesheet does not any manner lesser the allegation, in which, the Apex Court discussed the scope of successive bail application. Therefore, the onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected. After such consideration, if Court is of the opinion that bail has to be gratned, then Court will have to give specific reason why instead of such earlier rejection, subsequent application for bail should be granted. 9. Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 34 as under: “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. At this stage, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 is also required to be referred to wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized. Even, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Dhalasamanta vs. State of Odisha rendered in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.17256/2024, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the applicant on bail. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan reported in 2002 (3) SCC 598 held that, “the accused has right to make successive application for grant of bail, but while entertaining a subsequent bail application, it is the duty of Court to consider the reasons and grounds, which persuade to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application”. Thus, the offence against the applicant is very serious in nature and considering the role and conduct of the applicant, earlier application has also been withdrawn. 12. Considering the provisions for punishment in the present offence, which provide for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years with fine, and considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Page 6 of 7 R/CR.MA/7706/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 13. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis, and in the event the applicant fails to engage an advocate, the trial Court shall provide legal aid to the applicant through the office of the Chief Defence Counsel. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/06/2025 18:25:44