Gujarat High Court
Rajusinh Lalsinh Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 23283
of 2025
================================================================
RAJUSINH LALSINH MAKWANA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SOHAM JOSHI APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicants who have shown as accused nos. 2 and 3 in
the FIR which came to be registered by Himmatnagar A-
Division Police Station vide Part A C.R. No.
11209016251152 on 02.10.2025, for the offences alleged
to have been committed under Sections 316(5), 61(2) of the
BNS, 2023, Section 3 of the GPID Act, 2003, and Sections
21(1)(2)(3) and 22 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance, 2019, have preferred the present
application praying for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the BNSS, 2023.
2. As mentioned in the FIR, the accused no. 1, Ajaysinh
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Rajusinh Makvana, had started two businesses in the name
of A.R. Consultancy and A.R. Capital Service, having its
office at TF/31, Pratham Square Complex, Shakarijin Road,
Himmatnagar, wherein the present applicants were
partners, and all three of them were handling the business
of both the aforementioned firms from the said office. The
main business was pertaining to investment in Bitcoins, and
due propaganda for expansion of business by way of
advertisements, pamphlets, videos on social media, etc.
were carried out. As per the say of the original complainant,
the applicants and the co-accused Ajaysinh Rajusinh
Makvana would promise the people at large that their
companies would be paying more interest than the
nationalized banks and other finance companies, and by
promising so, would win over their trust.
The original complainant was also lured into the
promises given by the applicants and had mortgage gold
jewellery with IIFL bank, against which had procured a loan
of Rs. 4,50,000/-, had borrowed Rs. 4,00,000/- from his
father and had savings to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-, and
had also procured another loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Bank
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
of Baroda, and thereby had collected Rs. 1,03,45,000/-,
which he had deposited with the applicants' firms. The
receipts were given by the accused no. 1 to him, however,
agreements to that extent were not executed by the
accused. Initially, the original complainant had received
returns @ 5%, which amounted to Rs. 10 Lakhs, however,
from December 2024, he had stopped getting returns.
Upon enquiring, he found that the applicants, along with
co-accused Ajaysinh Makvana, had got other people
invested in their two companies, however had not repaid
the amounts to them.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yash N. Nanavaty for the
applicants, who has reiterated the averments of the
petition. Mr. Nanavaty has taken the Court through the
entire gamut of evidence which has been collected till date,
submitting that the applicants neither had any role nor had
any say in the business, which was carried out by the
accused no. 1.
4. Mr. Nanavaty has also submitted that, the original
complainant had mentioned in the FIR itself that he had
received returns till December 2024, hence, there was no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
intention of committing any breach of trust or cheating the
original complainant in any manner. There was no evidence
as regards the applicants and the co-accused Ajaysinh
Makvana having entered into the criminal conspiracy to
dupe the original complainant and others. Mr. Nanavaty has
also tried to impress upon the Court that, this is a case
based on documentary evidence, for which, the custodial
interrogation of the applicants is not necessary, and
accordingly, this application should be allowed.
5. Heard learned APP for the respondent - State and learned
advocate Mr. Kumar H Trivedi for the original complainant.
Both the learned APP and learned advocate Mr. Kumar H
Trivedi have submitted that the applicants, along with
accused Ajaysinh Makvana had committed a systematic
fraud, thereby duping various innocent investors, and
though they had promised to give them higher returns,
after briefly ensuring that returns would be passed on to
the investors, had thereafter stopped paying returns on to
investments and had also refused to return the principal
amounts, hence, this application should be rejected.
6. At the outset, the applicants were successfully luring the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
depositors to deposit Rs. 3,20,05,000/- in the two firms,
namely A.R. Consultancy and A.R. Capital Service, whereby
the firm A.R. Consultancy was registered in the name of
accused Ajaysinh Makvana, whereas the A.R. Capital Service
was registered as a partnership firm in the name of accused
Ajaysinh Makvana as well as the present applicants.
7. It appears from the investigation papers, that the
applicants had also opened offices at Modasa, Khedbrahma
and Mehsana and were luring investors by way of false
advertisements. It has also come on record that, the offices
at these three places were closed and the staff was also
laid off. The I.O. was able to recover agreement files of 86
investors from a business premise of the accused no. 1.
According to the I.O., the investigation is still at a nascent
stage, and they are yet to gather the details of the numbers
of investors, as well as the amounts which were invested
with the applicants.
8. It is pertinent to observe that in the decision of
Kalpeshbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL HC 251110, the High Court in
para 18 has observed thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
"There is no substantial difference between Sections
482 and 483 of BNS, 2023 so far as appreciation of the case
as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned.
However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be
granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an
extraordinary privilege should be granted only in
exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon
the court has to be properly exercised after proper
application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail. Parameters for grant of
anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be
satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court
must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court
is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been
enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
9. Thus, to say that there was no intention on part of the
applicants to dupe the investors and the case being one of
documentary evidence, would be mere eye wash.
Anticipatory bail, as has been observed in catena of
decisions, being extraordinary remedy which is required to
be granted only in exceptional circumstances, wherein the
accused would feel that he/she is falsely implicated, then
only the court would accede to the request. In the present
case, the learned Special Judge of Sabarkantha at
Himmatnagar, in his judgment while rejecting the
anticipatory bail application of the applicants, has observed
in detailed about the offence as well as the reasons to deny
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
anticipatory bail to the applicants. The affidavit of the I.O.,
which was also submitted before the Competent Court,
dwells at length as regards the modus operandi of the
applicants along with co-accused no. 1, in commission of
the crime. When the misappropriation is to the tune of
crores of rupees, wherein innocent investors are at
receiving end who while having faith and trust in the
applicants had invested their hard-earned money and
lifetime savings are stranded without any clue as to how,
when and how much amounts would be returned to them,
is the big question to which this Court cannot be oblivious
to.
10. It would be too early at this juncture to conclude that, the
offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants
is not one wherein, custodial interrogation would not be
required. The learned Special Judge had mindfully taken
refuge in the observations of the Gujarat High Court in the
case of Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs State of Gujarat in
Criminal Misc. Application (for Anticipatory Bail) No.
4677/2014 which read thus ;
"It is at that stage and in such circumstances that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23283/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
the custodial interrogation becomes a very important
factor.
Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced
with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated.
Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to
a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation
is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to
third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an
argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police
Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. (see
State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997)7 SCC 187."
11. In view of the forgoing discussion, the present application
seeking anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
12. Needless to say, that the observations made herein above
would be limited to the outcome of the present application
only, and shall not influence any other proceedings which
may or would arise from the impugned FIR.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)
ANIRUDH OJHA
