Gujarat High Court
Dineshsingh Jaypalsinh Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16905
of 2025
==========================================================
DINESHSINGH JAYPALSINH RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONIT V RATHOD(13125) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD.ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11210015250098 of 2025 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. The glimpse of the case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons, as named in the FIR, in collusion with each other, hatched a criminal conspiracy, and accordingly, purchased lab-grown polished diamonds weighing 2206.26 worth Rs.83,73,895/-, and to gain the trust of the complainant, initially paid Rs.24,00,010/-, and then to get the monetary benefits, did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs.59,73,885/-, and in the same manner, also purchased diamonds from witness Rakesh Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Amarsinh Mordiya worth Rs.7,24,190/- and from Hiteshbhai Talshibhai Mordiya, worth Rs.35,82,656/-, and then did not pay their outstanding dues also, and thereafter, closed their office and fled away, and thereby duped the complainant and other witnesses of Rs.01,02,80731/- . With this sort of allegations, the present FIR has been registered.
4. Thus, apprehending his arrest pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant preferred anticipatory bail before the trial court, however, the trial court has not entertained the said application and rejected the same.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ronit Rathod appearing for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR are of such a nature, for which, custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee from justice. He further submits that the present applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. He submits that looking to the allegations made in the FIR, no offence as alleged can be said to have been made out against the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that the FIR came to be lodged on 09.07.2025 for the incident alleged to have been taken place during the period between 27.10.2024 and 21.04.2025, and as such, there is a gross delay of almost three months in registering the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod submits that the role of the Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined present applicant is very limited to the effect that he introduced the main accused with the complainant, who were engaged in the business of diamond trading, and except this no specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant is the entire body of the FIR. He also submits that the complainant voluntarily entered into business transactions with the other co-accused, and agreed to supply lab-grwon diamonds, as mentioned in the FIR, to the co- accused. He submits that the entire dispute, as projected in the FIR, arises out of a purely civil and commercial transaction between the complainant and the accused No.1, and the present applicant has nothing to do with the alleged transactions and the present applicant has not received any monetary benefits out of the alleged transactions. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that an attempt is being made by the complainant to give a cloak of criminal offence to purely of a civil dispute by registering the present FIR, just with a view to exert pressure upon the present applicant. He also submits that even certain cheques were issued by the accused No.1 in his personal capacity, which upon being presented with the Bank got dishonoured, for which, an independent proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has already been initiated by the complainant against the accused No.1, which is pending for adjudication, which clearly indicates that the complainant has already resorted to the property statutory remedy for recovery of dues under a special enactment, and despite the same, has now abused the criminal machinery by registering the present FIR on the very same set of facts, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod submits that neither the present applicant is made a party in the proceedings under the N.I. Act nor any specific role is Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined mentioned in the FIR except to administer threat to the broker.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that the present applicant has neither signed any cheques nor entered into any written contract, nor is he the proprietor or signatory of the firm run and manage by the co-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod fairly submits that three other FIRs have also been lodged against the present applicant levelling similar kind of allegations, however, in all these three offences, the present applicant has already been protected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the respective quashing petitions filed by him. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, in its numerous decisions, has condemned the practice of using the criminal machinery as a tool to recover the money out of purely a commercial transaction. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that the present applicant has never entered into any personal or professional transaction with the complainant, neither he ever visited the business premises of the complainant. Moreover, the present applicant is suffering from severe health ailments, which require continuous monitoring and proper care, and in case of custodial arrest of the applicant, there exists a genuine risk of deterioration of the applicant's health condition. Further, the alleged offence is a Magistrate triable offence, and do no involve any heinous or grave elements so as to warrant custodial interrogation. Learned advocate Mr. Rathod further submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon documentary evidence, the all those documents are in the custody of the complainant, and as such, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He submits that the present applicant is a young man aged about 36 years, having no past antecedents. Under the circumstances, learned Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined advocate Mr. Rathod for the applicant prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
8. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP. Learned APP submits that the present applicant has been named in the FIR along with his specific role. He also submits that the present applicant has committed a serious offence. Learned APP further submits that the present applicant is a habitual offender in committing such type of crime, and there are other victims also who have been duped by the present applicant and the co-accused by adopting the very same modus operandi, and their statements have also been recorded, wherein they have categorically stated that they have been duped by the present applicant and other co-accused. He further submits that during the course of investigation, it is found out that the present applicant is a silent partner. Not only that, CDR is also collected by the investigating agency, from which, it appears that the present applicant was in constant touch with the other co-accused, and there are in all 211 calls between the present applicant and other co-accused. Even the location of the mobile phone of the present applicant is also found out in the office of the accused No.1 on all the alleged dates. Further, it is specifically alleged in the FIR that the applicant took the broker of the complainant, namely, Ghanshayambhai to Gadodara where he was beaten and threatened by the present applicant that they will not clear the outstanding amount of the complainant. Moreover, three are three antecedents of the similar nature against the present applicant. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that all the accused persons, in connivance with each other, have Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined committed the offence. It is submitted that the applicant has failed to establish case for extraordinary relief. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
10. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Hence, custodial interrogation is required.
11. It appears from the record that the present applicant has been named in the FIR and very serious allegations of breach of trust and cheating have been made against him. It further comes on record during the course of investigation that the present applicant is a silent partner in the Firm indulges in the business of diamond trading. It also appears from the record that it was the present applicant who introduced the complainant with the other co-accused, and then lured the complainant to enter into business transaction with their firm as they are having a huge diamond business. It is specifically alleged in the FIR that the accused No.1 called the broker of Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the complainant, namely, Ghanshayambhai to his office under the pretext of clearing the outstanding dues of the complainant, from where, the present applicant took him to Gadodara, where the present applicant beaten him and also threatened him that they will not pay the outstanding amount of the complainant, for which, an FIR has also been filed by the said Ghanshayambhai. Thus, from the aforesaid, the involvement of the present applicant is clearly found out. Not only that, during the course of investigation, other victims have also come forward, who have been duped by the present applicant and the co-accused by adopting the very same modus operandi, and their statements have also been recorded, wherein they have very categorically narrated the role of the present applicant. Moreover, it also appears from the record that three similar kind of antecedents are there against the present applicant. Furthermore, the complainant has been cheated of an amount of Rs.59,73,885/- which is quite huge. That apart, to whom the present applicant and the other co-accused persons have sold the diamonds of the complainant are still to be investigated, and therefore, to uncover the truth, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant seems to be necessary. Moreover, there are Call Data Records against the present applicant, which clearly indicates that the present applicant was in constant touch with the other co-accused, and the location of the mobile phone of the present applicant is also found to be available at the office of the accused No.1 on the alleged dates.
12. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that there is a huge fraud of lakhs of rupees alleged to have been committed by Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the present applicant along with the other co-accused by not repaying the outstanding amount of the complainant, and thereby the complainant has been cheated of an amount of Rs.59,73,885/-. Further, the offence with which the applicant is charged with is an economic offence and is against the interest of the society.
13. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of misappropriating lakhs of rupees of the complainant is quite grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon me to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.
14. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. After a thorough deliberation, the Supreme Court arrived at the following conclusion:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
(iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
xxx xxx xxx"
15. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
16. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail.
17. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that "the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
18. This Court after considering number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, has observed in case of MOHMED SALIM ABDUL RASID SHAIKH V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2001 [2] GLR 1580 as under;
"13. There is no scope for present applicant to urge that he may be saved from disgrace or unwarranted hardship. While entertaining the anticipatory bail application of the accused, the Court should consider various aspects such as;
[i] earlier offences registered against the applicant accused and the nature thereof including the area of activity, modus etc. if brought to the notice of the Court;
[ii] gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed. Whether custodial interrogation is, prima facie, unavoidable ?
[iii] likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
[iv] position and status of the accused individually and also with reference to the victim and witnesses; [v] likelihood of repetition of similar type of offence;
[vi] whether he would jeopardise his own life being faced with grief or grim prospects of possible conviction in the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined case;
[vii] likelihood of tampering with the evidence or witnesses during the process of investigation, status and stage of investigation;
[viii] plea of false implication on some special vendetta, if taken.
[ix] other relevant grounds which may apply to facts and circumstances of that particular case; "
19. Similarly, the Apex Court has also considered the scope of Section 438 in case of DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [FERA] V. ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA reported in 1998 [1] SCC 52. The relevant observations made in para-7 are quoted as under :-
"7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of the law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined blanket order full insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual."
20. Coming to the case on hand, from the allegations levelled in the FIR and the materials placed on record, it appears that the very serious allegations of misappropriation of lakhs of rupees have been made against the applicant. Moreover, the present case also falls within the category of economic offences and the amount involved in the present case is quite huge, and it is trite law that in economic offences, benefit of pre-arrest bail should not be extended in favour of the accused in a casual manner. Thus, at this stage, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary.
21. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money- Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1, State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751. The Supreme Court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under:-
"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..."
22. Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case of custodial interrogation of the accused is made out by the prosecution for securing the incriminating materials from the information likely to be received from the accused, then the power under Section 482 should not be exercised in a routine manner. The presence of the applicant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to be needed to uncover the truth. The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving cheating and misappropriation of huge volume of amount, the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS should Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined not be exercised.
23. Thus, what is discernible from the above is that while deciding anticipatory bail application, it is the first duty of the Court to see seriousness of the offence, prima facie case and interest of the society at a large. Therefore, when no special and compelling circumstances are made out and no case of false implication of present applicant in the alleged offence is made out before this Court, I am of the opinion that this Court should refrain itself from exercising its discretionary powers in favour of the present applicant at this stage.
24. Further, the present applicant is involved in white collar socio-economic offence which constitute a class apart and needs to be visited with a different approach. The economic offences adversely affect the economic and social fabric of the country. In such circumstances also, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would frustrate the investigation.
25. In view of above discussion and considering the materials produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that there seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that at the initial stage of the investigation of the offence, grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant is likely to hamper the investigation and investigating agency is likely to lose an opportunity to exploit all the fact situation, probabilities or opportunities which the Agency may get during the custodial interrogation of a person, and therefore, keeping in mind all the factors, no interference is required at this stage. The impugned order passed by the trial court, rejecting Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16905/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined anticipatory bail application of the applicant is just and proper and does not require any interference at the end of this Court.
26. In the result, the present application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court herein above at this stage while deciding the anticipatory bail application, would not come in the way of the applicant at the time as and when if ultimately the trial court is proceeded with the trial, and at the stage of consideration of regular bail application, if preferred by the applicant. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:09:48 IST 2025