Gujarat High Court
Sapna Pratikbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 23372
of 2025
==========================================================
SAPNA PRATIKBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HITENDRA D RAJPUT(7224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Odhav Police, Ahmedabad, has preferred the present application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying for anticipatory bail. The offense came to be registered under Sections 406, 420, 409 and 506(1) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the GPID Act, registered vide C.R. No.I- 11191037250945 of 2025.
2. The applicant was initially not named in the FIR Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined however, came to be arrayed as an accused later on, during the course of investigation. The co-accused Sweetyben Maulik Shah was granted regular bail vide order passed in CRMA (for successive regular bail after charge-sheet) No.21555 of 2025.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Yash N. Nanavati appearing for Mr.Hitendra D. Rajput for the applicant has submitted that, the applicant was not named in the FIR and she has been arrayed as co-accused only because she is the wife of accused no.2-Pratikbhai Maheshbhai Shah and no more. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that, the applicant is not associated with any of the companies with which, accused no.2-Pratikbhai Maheshbhai Shah was dealing, and she had neither lured nor duped any of the investors nor received money in her account from any of them. Learned advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the final forensic record wherein, the amount of Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Rs.30,36,665/- which was received in the applicant's account was reversed by way of payment of Rs.46,72,515/-. Learned advocate has stated that, there is no iota of evidence so as to implicate the applicant in the crime, which she has not committed and accordingly, the present application should be allowed.
4. Heard learned APP Mr.Soaham Joshi who has fiercely opposed this application submitting that, the applicant who is the wife of co-accused Pratik was actively involved in the offense with him and co- accused Sweetyben, whereby, all three of them had lured investors to invest in their quick start 24 group companies and Enlife Capsure LLP Company. The applicant along with co-accused i.e. her husband and Sweetyben i.e. her sister in law by using the name Quick Start 24 group had established a group of companies which included Enlife Capsure LLP, Shah Enterprise, Qsmart Retail Ltd., Enlife Capsure 2.0 Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined LLP, Enclave Investment Pvt. Ltd., Enlife Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., QS Technocare, Forex Education with EnclaveFX Limited, Blossomlite Englance Pvt. Ltd., Quickpath Capsure LLP, Nirbhay marg News Broad cast Pvt. Ltd. Quickstart 24 Foundation, Autograph Trading Pvt. Ltd. And Unitrust Nidhi Ltd., which were involved in businesses of stock market, real estate, forex trading, news channels capital finance, film making etc. They had promised 3% to 6% monthly returns to the complainant and other investors in their company Q Smart Retail Limited, and the complainant and the investors were duped for total amount of Rs.3,81,09,200/-. The main accused Pratik shah has fled to Dubai after the FIR having been registered.
4.1 Learned APP Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that, the money entries which were reversed to the tune of Rs.38.27 crores, Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined were in various companies who were not depositors. The final forensic audit report also implicates the applicant and other other co-accused in the crime. Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of this Court to the graphical presentation of the financial transactions of the applicant and the other co-accused. 4.2 Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of one of the witnesses viz. Hardiben Amarbhai Khunt wherein, she has categorically stated that she had visited the office of Pratik Shah along with her husband and mother in law, and the applicant, her husband Pratik and her sister in law Sweety, all three of them had explained various schemes to her and had made them invest Rs.29 lakhs for which, initially she was paid Rs.8,61,680/- towards returns, however, thereafter, she had not been paid a penny.
4.3 Mr.Joshi has strongly opposed the bail Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined application stating that, co-accused Sweetyben was only released after charge-sheet came to be filed, and that too, on regular bail. Hence, the case of the applicant cannot be equated with that of Sweetyben. According to Mr.Joshi the applicant is equally involved in the offense and was not a mere spectator as has been projected.
4.4 Learned APP Mr.Joshi has also drawn the attention towards the affidavit of the IO which speaks volumes about the involvement of the applicant in the said offense.
5. At this juncture, it would be fruitful to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs State of Punjab reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in para 23, which reads as under :-
"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice."
Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus:-
"9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid down by the apex court and considering the averments made in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after considering the observations made by the learned sessions judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Sumitha Pradeep Vs Arun Kumar C.K. And Anr. reported in (2022) 17 SCC 391 has observed in para 12 which is reproduced herein:-
"12.We are 2025dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
The aforesaid observations have to be considered while deciding this application.
6. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions of Mr.Nanavati that, the case is based on documentary evidence and the custody of the applicant is not required, in the light of the investigation papers. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that, co-accused Sweetyben was released on regular bail only after charge-sheet having been filed against her. This Court cannot also overlook the fact that, Pratik, the husband of the applicant is absconding till date. Further, this Court cannot be Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23372/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined insensitive to the fact that, various investors and depositors are groping in dark as to when their monies would be returned to them. As per the investigation papers co-accused Pratik Shah has fled to Dubai with the monies of the investors. During the course of investigation, apart from the original complainant, 17 other investors were traced and the total amount of their investments had reached Rs.3,84,34,000/-. To accept the submission of learned advocate Mr.Nanavati on behalf of the applicant that, the applicant is in no way associated with the business of her husband, would be like rubbing salt to the wounds of the investors at this stage.
7. In the event this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:01:17 IST 2025