R/CR.MA/9351/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 9351 of 2025 ========================================================== AMITKUAMR DAHYABHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR YASH B PATEL(12956) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS CHINTANIKA P LUKHI(10189) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 SHREY H DAVE(8444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 27/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State. Learned advocate Mr. Shrey H Dave waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I- 11191011240209 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad District. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State. 4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and 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. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail interalia contending that the applicants has floated several investment schemes and had received money from as many as 24 R/CR.MA/9351/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 witnesses towards investment. Though there was an agreement between the applicants and the victims, neither the principle amount nor any interest amount has been paid by the present applicants. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the application contending that the first informant as well as other witnesses had invested their hard earned money in various schemes floated by the present applicant and, it was agreed between the parties that the applicant shall return the principle amount as well as the interest upto 3% to 4% per month, however, neither the principle amount nor any interest thereon have been returned to the first informant or any other witnesses. Learned advocate for the original complainant has therefore submitted to dismiss the present application. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. It is the case of prosecution that, the applicant along with other co-accused who happens to be his wife had received money from the first informant as well as other witnesses towards investments in various schemes and in furtherance thereof, the applicant had also entered in an agreement with the respective witnesses including the first informant, to the effect that the applicant shall return the principle amount with the interest at the rate of 3% to 4 % per month. However, neither the principle amount nor the interest thereon has been paid by the applicant herein to the first informant or any other witnesses. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the application deserves consideration. 8. This court has considered the following aspects: R/CR.MA/9351/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 (a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused. (b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away. (c) That the Applicant is in custody since 21.08.2024. (d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that he shall: (a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities. (c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of R/CR.MA/9351/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025 executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court. (d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court. (e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any. (f) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.. (g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court (h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect. 10. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for. 11. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. 12. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 13. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. (M. R. MENGDEY,J) Radhika Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RADHIKA ABHILASH(HCD0042), Steno Gr II, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/07/2025 11:13:23