Gujarat High Court
Shikha Abhijit Goswami vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 03/07/2025
Pronounced On : 11/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 12808
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SHIKHA ABHIJIT GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH RAJU, LD. ADV. WITH MR. DHANESH R PATEL(8226) 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
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. 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.11217041250272 of 2025
registered with Saraswati Police Station, Patan for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju for learned advocate
Mr. D.R. Patel appearing for the applicant submits that the nature
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this
stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will
keep herself available during the course of investigation, trial also
and will not flee from justice. Learned advocate Mr. Raju also
submits that the FIR came to be lodged on 14.05.2025 for the
incident alleged to have been taken place during the period
between 26.09.2023 and 28.12.2024, and as such, there is a
gross delay of four months in registering the FIR, without there
being any satisfactory explanation worth the name about such
delay in registering the FIR. The FIR is filed against total three
persons, wherein the present applicant has been shown as
accused No.3. Learned advocate Mr. Raju submits that the
present applicant is the Director of With Envoy Pvt. Ltd., which
indulges into carrying out the business of providing services
relating to facilitation and processing of Student Visa Applications
including guidance, documentation and support throughout the
Visa procurement process for the students intending to study
abroad. The accused No.1 was also one of the Directors in the
said Company and was working along with the applicant in the
same premises. He submits that it is the case of the prosecution
that all the accused persons, in connivance with each other,
defrauded the complainant of Rs.37,00,000/- under the guise of
providing Work Permit Visa of United Kingdom, and despite
payment of such an amount, as demanded by the accused, still
the Work Permit Visa has not been provided to the complainant
for his son. Learned advocate Mr. Raju further submits that the
present applicant has been wrongly dragged into the offence
because once the complainant went to meet the accused No.1 at
the Company of the present applicant and handed over an
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused No.1, at that time, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
accused No.1, in turn, handed over the said amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- to the present applicant in the presence of the
complainant, and only on this ground alone, she has been
dragged into the present offence. He submits that except this,
there is no other allegation against the present applicant.
Learned advocate Mr. Raju submits that the work of the present
applicant is altogether different, and she is not doing the work of
getting the Work Permit Visa, and it is the accused No.1 who was
doing the said work in his personal capacity, however, just
because the accused No.1 was operating his business from the
same premises where the present applicant is also doing his
business of student visas, she has been falsely implicated in the
present offence, and the said fact is also affirmed on oath by the
accused No.1 by filing an affidavit cum declaration that the entire
work of carrying out the work of Work Permit Visa was being done
by him in his personal capacity, and neither the present applicant
nor the Company has any connection with the work visa related
transactions.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Raju further submits that when the
present applicant came to know about the accused No.1 being
doing the business of Work Permit Visa in her premises, she
immediately confronted the accused No.1, and then, he resigned
from the Directorship. He further submits that out of the entire
alleged transaction, the present applicant has not received a
single penny in her account. Neither the present applicant
personally met the complainant nor made any phone call to him.
Whatever talks or transactions took place was directly between
the complainant and the accused No.1. Learned advocate Mr.
Raju submits that in the FIR, the complainant has very
deliberately suppressed the fact that he has not initiated any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused
No.1, but the fact is that proceedings under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act have been initiated by the complainant against the
accused No.1, wherein the present applicant and her Company
has also been arraigned as an accused despite the fact that the
cheques were issued by the accused No.1 in his personal
capacity. Learned advocate Mr. Raju submits that the question is
whether two different proceedings, i.e, under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act and under Section 420 of the IPC, out of the same
transaction and based upon same set of facts, can be initiated
against the same person/accused, and in this regard there are
two conflicting views of two different Benches of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, and therefore, for the purpose of maintaining the
uniformity on the subject, recently the said issue was referred to
the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is still pending
for adjudication. Moreover, the applicant does not have any past
antecedents. Learned advocate Mr. Raju for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide
by all the conditions that may be imposed while releasing the
applicant on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate, therefore,
submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be
granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submits that
the specific role of the applicants are clearly spelt out from the
body of the complaint. Learned APP further submits that the
Company of the present applicant is a registered Firm wherein
the present applicant is a Director. He submits that as of now,
four persons have been duped by the said Firm of the applicant,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
and all the victim persons have paid a hefty amount of Rs.1 Crore
to the Firm of the applicant to get their work done, but neither
their work has been completed nor the amount is returned back
to them by the applicant's Firm. It is an admitted position of fact
that all the alleged transactions had taken place within the same
premises by one of the Directors of the Firm. Not only that, after
receiving the amount from the complainant, even the receipts
were also issued on the letterhead of the Company. However,
learned APP has fairly conceded that during the course of
investigation, the Bank Statement of the Company has been
obtained by the Investigating Officer, and not a single entry
relating to transaction in question is found from the said Bank
account, and as such, it can be said that no amount had gone in
the Company's account. Therefore, considering the above stated
aspects, appropriate order may be passed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the
antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he
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; and (iv) where the accusation has
been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail
an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused,
should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(a) That, it appears from the record that the present
applicant is not doing the business of Work Permit
Visa, and her business is to get the Student Visas for
the students, who intend to study abroad;
(b) That, accused No.1 himself has filed an affidavit cum
declaration that he was doing the business of Work
Permit Visa in his individual capacity, and neither the
Company nor the present applicant are connected
with the said business in any manner;
(c) That, the applicant was not aware about the said
business being carried out by the accused No.1, and
as soon as she came to know about the same, she
confronted the accused No.1, and then the accused
No.1 resigned from the Directorship of the Company;
(d) That, the present applicant has been arraigned as an
accused being one of the Directors of the Company,
which is contrary to settled law as the liability for any
default or irregularity being committed by one
Director cannot be fastened upon another Director in
a slipshod manner;
(e) Moreover, two proceedings have been initiated by the
complainant against the present applicant out of the
very same transaction and on the same set of facts,
one under the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I.Act
and another is the impugned FIR, and the law is still
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
not settled in this regard as there are two conflicting
views of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the said issue,
which was referred to the Larger Bench, and is still
pending for adjudication;
(f) In the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act, the present applicant and her Company has
also been arraigned as an accused, though the
cheques were signed by the accused No.1 in his
personal capacity;
(g) That, neither the present applicant met with the
complainant personally nor she ever made any phone
call to the complainant, and the Bank statement of
the Company obtained by the investigator does not
reflect any entry relating to alleged transaction;
(h) Moreover, the present applicant is a lady having no
past antecedents;
7. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated
the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC
665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined
to allow the present application.
8. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
connection with FIR being C.R.No.11217041250272 of 2025
registered with Saraswati Police Station, Patan, the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on the following conditions that applicant:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station
on 14.07.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and
the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment
or inconvenience is caused to the applicants;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change her/his residence till
the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same
before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the person who seeks and is granted pre-
arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12808/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.
10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
