[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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