Umesh Jagdish Tyagi vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocates Mr. Harisingh Sodha and Mr. Munzal Acharya for learned advocate Ms. Chetnaben Joshi for the applicants and learned APP Mr.Niraj Sharma for the respondent-State.

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

The applicants have filed these applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11189010250004/2025 registered with Morbi Cyber Crime Police Station, Morbi, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS and 66-d of the Information Technology Amendment Act.

Learned advocates for the applicants would submit that while the FIR inter alia alleges a fraud of Rs.1.5 Crores at the behest of the main accused after charge-sheet has been filed, the role attributed to the present applicants of the said applicant of which he had received commission amounting to Rs.1 Lakh. Learned advocates would submit that having regard to the limited role, which is alleged to have been played by the present applicant and also considering the fact that there is no antecedent against the present applicants as regards being involved in any criminal offence and since the charge-sheet is filed, this Court may consider and release the applicants on regular bail.

These applications have been vehemently objected to by learned APP Mr. Sharma, who would submit that a large amount has been defrauded from the complainant. Learned APP would submit that the present applicants were aware as regards their accounts being used for depositing the money, which were actually proceeds of the crime. Learned APP could not more particularly as per the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer dispute the fact that the applicants had no role to play the principal offence.

Learned APP would submit that the present applicants not being residents of the State of Gujarat, upon being released them would abscond and not being available for facing trial.

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 role the attributed to the present applicants is only with regard to having permitted their account to be used for some monitory gain. One of applicant getting Rs.5000/- per month (Gaurav Inspector Saini) and one of the applicant getting a Lakh of rupees as commission (Umesh Jagdish Tyagi).

(ii) The fact of co-accused having been considered for grant of regular bail by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.1052 of 2025 and 1036 of 2025.

(iii) The fact of the present applicants not being named as the main accused.

(iv) the fact of applicants not having any antecedent of being involved in any criminal offence.

(v) Apprehension alleged by learned APP could be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.

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 applicants on regular bail.

Hence, the present applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11189010250004/2025 registered with Morbi Cyber Crime Police Station, Morbi, on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they 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] intimate to Investigating Officer the proposed address of residence, where the applicants would reside in the State of Gujarat at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the said 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 applicants 13. The application are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.