Gujarat High Court
Chauhan Vinodbhai Bhagubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 17 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 802 of 2025
==========================================================
CHAUHAN VINODBHAI BHAGUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. The present successive bail application is filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short "BNSS") for regular bail in connection with FIR being
C.R. No.11206075240862 of 2024 registered with
Visnagar Town Police Station, Mehsana for the offences
punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420 and 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
crime without any direct or indirect involvement. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. The name of the applicant is not
mentioned anywhere in the complaint. The applicant is a local
resident and is not likely to abscond. The applicant has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
obtained any financial gain. No role of the applicant has been
found in the crime and now after filing of the charge-sheet
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the
present applicant. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. He
therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence,
the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing
suitable conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State opposed the present application submitting that the
applicant is the kingpin of the alleged scam and conspired to
lure individuals into investing in the stock market by promising
huge returns. It was stated that the accused operated an office
under the name "Parishram Finance" at Shop No. 53, Sukh
Nivas Complex, near Dosabhai Bagh, Visnagar. The accused
allegedly used the Market Pulse application on their mobile
phones to monitor stock market fluctuations and contacted
individuals using phone numbers they had obtained,
persuading them to invest by offering tips and significant profit
promises. These activities were conducted without a valid
stock exchange license, resulting in the defrauding of
individuals and betraying their trust. The total defrauded
amount stands at ₹1,56,50,649, collected from various
individuals under the pretense of stock market investment.
During the investigation, mobile phones, laptops, and contact
details of various individuals were seized from the accused's
possession. Therefore, present application does not deserve
any consideration.
5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for
bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his
abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations are required to be considered.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record,
at the time of deciding the regular bail under Section under
Section 483 of the BNS, the consideration of various factors
depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case
before the Court. There is no straight jacket formula that can
ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be.
However, certain important factors that are always considered,
inter alia, relate to the prima facie involvement of the accused,
the nature and gravity of the charge, the severity of the
punishment, and the character, position, and standing of the
accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
7. The documents on record reveal that the accused used
the "Market Pulse" application to monitor stock market
fluctuations and contacted individuals through phone numbers,
persuading them to invest in the stock market with promises of
high returns. Operating without a stock exchange license, the
accused engaged in unauthorized stock market trading,
thereby deceiving and betraying investors. Shop No. 53 in the
Sukh Nivas Complex was rented for this purpose, and potential
investors were contacted using dummy SIM cards provided by
accused No.6, posing as "Green Stock Advisory." Accused No.2,
Narendrasinh Barad, received ₹29,80,624 in his HDFC Bank
account (Kukarvada branch), and accused No.5, Anil Baidnath
Soni, received ₹1,26,70,025 in his HDFC Bank account
between 25/08/2023 and 16/03/2024. The total amount
defrauded stands at ₹1,56,50,649, collected from multiple
individuals under the pretense of stock market investments.
8. So far as the role of the present applicant is concerned,
the applicant, as part of the criminal conspiracy, rented the
"Parishram Finance" office for carrying out illegal activities. He
coordinated with other accused to acquire an HDFC Bank
account on commission and facilitated fund transfers. A sum of
₹5,00,000 from the fraudulent funds was transferred to the
applicant's Bank of Baroda account (Visnagar) via UPI. The
applicant is linked with accused No.1 and used dummy SIM
cards obtained from accused No.6 for the fraudulent activities.
The present applicant has been actively involved in financial
fraud alongside the co-accused and on analysis of the CDR,
involvement of the applicant is found, nonetheless, applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
has transferred the amount through (Angadia firm) private
channel of courier namely, Ramesh Kantilal Firm, ₹19,11,385
and in other accounts also, he has transferred the amount, as
further investigation is going on, if applicant is released on
bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out with the tampering
with an evidence.
9. Since the co-accused are absconding and custodial
interrogation of the said accused is required, if the present
applicant is released, the volatile nature of the data, which
includes use of dummy accounts, dummy SIM cards and online
transactions done through private courier channels, poses a
risk, the interest of the prosecution is required to be
considered. This offence is of financial nature, and in this
regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Others
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it has been observed
in paragraph 5 as under in paragraph:
"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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
10. So far as the arguments advanced by the learned
advocate for the applicant that the applicant be released as
the charge sheet has been filed is concerned, another
important aspect that needs to be considered is that the mere
filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient ground to enlarge the
accused on bail, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The State of
Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. If the applicant
is released, the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot
be ruled out, especially since the co-accused are absconding,
and the volatile nature of the data could affect the integrity of
the evidence.
11. Herein, the allegation against the applicant is that by
giving temptation of unrealistic gain and profit by investing
money in stock market without any authority by opening
dummy accounts and using dummy SIM cards, accused
persons have defalcated the money. Not only that, co-accused
are also yet to be arrested and investigation in that regard is
still going on and other complaints from other States are also
received and therefore, if the applicant is released on bail then
the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled as
the evidence in the present case is electronic and volatile in
nature and therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and
keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla
Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 wherein it
has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of
absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life
or liberty of others is jeopardized.
12. Further, the present applicant-accused 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. At this stage, reference is required to be
made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Others
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it has been observed
in paragraph 5 as under in paragraph:
"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."
In such circumstances also, grant of bail at this stage
would frustrate the investigation which is still going on qua
other co-accused.
13. In the aforesaid background and facts, this Court prima
facie is of view that the applicant along with other accused
committed the offence of breach of criminal trust and duped
the innocent people. Considering the same, it cannot be said
that the applicant herein has been falsely implicated in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/802/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
alleged offence.
14. For the foregoing reasons and as co-accused are yet to
be arrested and investigation qua other co-accused is still
going on, at this stage, this Court is of view that at this stage
present is not a fit case to exercise discretion and allow the
application under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of the
applicant. Accordingly, present application does not deserve
any consideration and is hereby dismissed. All reasons are
tentative in nature. Rule is discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
ALI / AJAY
