IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1560 of 2026 ========================================================== SANTOSH ALLURI VERMA SARYANARAYAN RAJU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pravin Gondaliya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Divyangna Jhala 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 %led 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. I-69/2019 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha for the o4ence punishable under p. 2 Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 409 of the IPC. 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 %led no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for inde%nite 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. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Gondaliya would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- with the learned Trial Court to show his bona %des and request is also made that the applicant may also be permitted to remain outside the State of Gujarat till the trial commences. 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 o4ence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from p. 3 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 in the FIR being that the complainant had sought for franchise of the outlet run by the company of the present applicant and having deposited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, the complainant having requested for not proceeding further with his request, the applicant not having returned back the money. ii. The fact of the monies having been paid in the year 2017 whereas, the FIR having been %led in the year 2019. iii. While it would appear that the FIR is %led in the year 2019 and the applicant is arrested recently, yet, prima facie, it would appear that the applicant may not be absconding only on account of the present FIR. iv. The fact of the present applicant prima facie appearing to be running a private limited company and whereas, there are two antecedents against the present applicant, p. 4 both being of the year 2019. v. The submission that the applicant would deposit the entire amount i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- with the learned Trial Court to show his bona %des. 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 %t 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. I-69/2019 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, 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 on %ling an undertaking that the applicant will deposit an amount of p. 5 Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) before the Trial Court concerned within a period of one month from the date of his release 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; [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] to remain present as and when required by the learned Trial Court. 9. In case the above referred amount is not deposited within the stipulated time limit, it would be open for the Trial Court to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9.1. Upon the amount being deposited, the same shall be invested in %xed deposit, and whereas, the learned Trial Court shall decide appropriately as regards apportionment / p. 6 disbursement of the said amount, at the time of the %nal outcome of the trial. 9.2. Upon the entire amount being deposited, the passport of the applicant shall be released and the present applicant, as and when, if seeks to travel abroad, shall intimate to the learned Trial Court and the Investigating O4icer with appropriate itinerary and shall strictly abide by the same. 10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other o4ence 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. 11. 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. 12. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be inFuenced 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 p. 7 on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi