Meet Prakashbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Timbalia for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Asmita Ptel 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.11206073240430/2024 registered with Vadnagar Police Station, Dist. Mehsana, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 319(2), 318(2), 318(4), 61(2) o the BNS.

Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is arraigned in two different FIRs and whereas it is submitted that apart from the said FIRs, there are other 3 FIRs, where similar allegation is alleged. Learned advocate would submit that as such, an accused in the FIR in which the present applicant has been arraigned having been considered, whereas role attributed to the said accused being similar to the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may consider the case of the present applicant for release on regular bail. Learned advocate would rely upon the case of one Thakore Sendhaji @ Prakashji Jesangji, whose case had been considered for release on regular bail by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.6811 o 2025. Learned advocate would submit that while the State had argued before the learned Coordinate Bench as regards the said accused being one of the main accused in the commission of the offence and additional role attributed to the said accused was of having provided dummy sim cards to other accused for making phone call to lure victims to invest in the sotck market. Learned advocate would submit that as such in so far as said accused are concerned, the money get from the alleged proceeds of the crime, had been deposited in the account of the wife and mother of the said accused. Learned advocate would also rely upon the case of one Bharatji Thakore in whose account a total Rs.2,86,000,00/- had been received and whereas it is submitted that while there were allegations of the said accounts having been misused in so far as the present applicant is concerned, the allegation is that he has received around Rs.1,70,00,000/-Lakhs approximately and whereas while the said Bharatji Thakor also had forwarded money to other accused, the same also is the allegation against the present applicant.

This application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP Ms. Patel. Learned APP would submit that the present is the case of large scale financial frauds committed by the present applicant along with other accused. Learned APP would submit that against the accounts provided by the present applicant, the complaints have been received from different States. Learned APP would submit that the present applicant had, in fact taken a share of the amount, which had been deposited in their accounts and whereas under such circumstances, it is requested that this Court may not release the present applicant on regular bail.

To a pointed query by this Court, learned APP could not deny that the role attributed to co-accused Sendhaji Thakor, was more serious than the role attributed to 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) While the allegations of being part of the main conspiracy, but considering the fact that a person having similar allegation, having been considered by the learned Coordinate Bench, the same benefit is also required to be granted to the present applicant.

(ii) While learned APP has relied upon CDR to show that the present applicants were part of of main criminal conspiracy, yet, considering the fact the accused having more serious role has already been enlarged on regular bail by learned Coordinate Bench as far back as in the month of June, 2025, the present application also deserves consideration.

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.11206073240430/2024 registered with Vadnagar Police Station, Dist. Mehsana, on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 15 days before the concerned Police Station till the trial commences.

[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 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 ourt 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.