Abhishek Rasikbhai Khoyani vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. N.P. Pandya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta for the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

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.11821021250004/2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Dahod, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 61(2) and 54 of the BNS and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that while the allegation is that the main accused had defrauded the complainant under the guise of providing dealership of a two wheeler, according to the learned advocate, the limited role attributed to the present applicant is that he had provided his mobile hotspot to other accused, which hotspot had been used for transferring the proceeds of crime, approximately Rs.3 Lakhs. Learned advocate would submit that as such, beyond the applicant being a friend of one of the accused, neither the applicant was recipient of any benefit from the crime in question and whereas there are other antecedents against the present applicant of being part of any offence herein before. Under such circumstance, the present applicant may be considered for regular bail.

This application is being vehemently objected to by learned APP Mr. Maheta, who would submit that a fraud had been committed and whereas the mobile of the applicant had been used for the commission of the fraud. To a pointed query, learned APP would submit that the IP address of the mobile of the present applicant, was used for transferring the part of the amount and whereas present applicant is beneficiaries in any manner whatsoever of the fraud in question.

Learned Advocates for the parties do not press for reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The fact that the applicant having no role to play in the principal offence.

(ii) Even as per the affidavit of the I.O. before the Sessions Court, it would appear the mobile number i.e. present applicant appears to have given his hotspot to co-accused, who had used the same in transferring amount of Rs.3 Lakhs which was actual proceeds of the crime.

(ii) The fact of the applicant not receiving any benefit whatsoever from the entire transaction or even the alleged fraud.

(iii) The fact of age of the applicant stated to be around 21 years.

(iv) The fact that there are no antecedents against the present applicant.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made 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.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11821021250004/2025 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Dahod, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five 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 passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] mark presence once every fortnight before the concerned Police Station till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter, once in month for six months.

[f] 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 residential address without prior intimation to the I.O.

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 free to take appropriate action in the matter.

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.

At the stage of trial, the trial 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 considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.