Jasram @ Jassi Ramprasad Meena vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya 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.11201018240028/2024 registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Anand, for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 308(6), 317(2), 318(4), 319, 336(2), 336(3), 337 and 340 of the BNS and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technologies Act, 2008.

Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the role attributed to the present applicant is of facilitating the crime by providing his bank account, more particularly the charge-sheet recording itself that while the transaction of Rs. 19,44,000/- had been made in the account of the present applicant, the application had received commission of Rs.37,000/- for providing the bank account. Learned advocate would rely upon the order dated 30.07.2025 in the case of one Mahendrkumar Meena co-accused in present FIR against whom similar allegations had been levelled and in whose wife’s account, an amount of Rs.1,20,000,00/- had been deposited, having been enlarged on regular bail by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned advocate based upon the same, would request to consider the case of the present applicant of being enlarged on regular bail.

This application is vehemently opposed by learned APP Mr. Kathiriya, who would submit that the present applicant having provided his bank details, had facilitated a huge fraud. Learned APP would submit that the present applicant having received some amount in his bank account, had transferred the same to the co-accused and had received commission. Learned APP would submit that considering the nature of fraud in question and considering the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not consider the case of the present applicant at this stage.

To a pointed query, learned APP based upon the charge-sheet document, could not differentiate between the role attributed to co-accused Mahendrakumar Meena and the present applicant.

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 of the co-accused having similar / severe graver role, having been considered for being enlarged on regular bail by learned Coordinate Bench.

(ii) The fact of present applicant receiving commission amounting to Rs.37,000/- for providing his bank account.

(iii) The fact that the applicant does not appear to be part of the principal conspiracy.

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.11201018240028/2024 registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Anand, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 in a month before the concerned Police Station till the trial commences.

[f] furnish the proposed address of residence in the State of Gujarat, to the Investigating Officer 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 Investigating Officer.

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.