Gujarat High Court
Ritul Nirmal Luhadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 08/09/2025
Pronounced On : 15/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16888
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RITUL NIRMAL LUHADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NIRUPAM D. NANAVATY, LD. SR. ADV. WITH LD ADV. MR P P
MAJMUDAR & LD. ADV. MR. VIPUL B SUNDESHA(6689) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TARUN H RAWAT(13044) for the Respondent(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 returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned
advocate Mr. Tarun H. Rawat waives service of notice of rule for
and on behalf of the respondent No.2-original complainant.
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.11191011250215 of 2025
registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty assisted
by learned advocate Mr. P.P. MaJmudar and learned advocate Mr.
Vipul B. Sundesha appearing for the applicant submits that the
nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at
this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant
will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial
also and will not flee from justice. Learned senior advocate Mr.
Nanavaty also submits that the FIR came to be lodged on
23.07.2025 for the incident alleged to have been taken place
during the period between 17.03.2025 and 23.07.2025, and as
such, there appears to be an inordinate delay in registering the
FIR. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty also submits that the
allegations made in the FIR are to the effect that all the accused
persons, in connivance with each other, with an intention to
cheat the complainant, hatched a conspiracy, and then acting
upon the said conspiracy, duped the complainant of crores of
rupees. He submits that the complainant was engaged in doing
the trading of mobile phones and mobile accessories in the name
and style as 'VIBH Connect LLP' which procured the mobile
phones from different companies, and then sold them to the firms
and companies engaged in the export of mobile phones and
accessories. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further
submits that somewhere in the year 2021, while the complainant
was working on a commission basis with 5G Mobility Private
Limited, they came into contact with the accused No.4-Nirmal
Jain, who then introduced him with his son, i.e. the present
applicant, and informed the complainant that they had a good
relationship with Apple India Company, and encouraged the
complainant to do business with the present applicant, assuring
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
that their money or goods would not be withheld.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submits that
it is alleged that the present applicant who was the Director of
SIA KIA Trading India Pvt. Ltd., informed the complainant that he
is managing the company along with other two partners, i.e, the
accused Nos.1 and 2, and also claimed that the Company had an
Apple-authorized dealer Code and that if the complainant
purchased mobile phones from them, timely delivery was
guaranteed. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submits that
thereafter, the complainant entered into business transaction
with the SIA KIA Trading India Pvt. Ltd., and placed huge order of
iPhones and other devices with the SIA KIA Trading India Pvt. Ltd.,
however, it is alleged that against the huge order of 7900 phones
upon payment of Rs.40.10,69,500/-, the said SIA Kia Company
delivered only the partial goods worth Rs.12,15,73,600/-, and as
such, although the applicant's firm had returned back
1,60,00,000/- to the complainant's firm, still the amount of
Rs.26,34,95,900/- remains unpaid by the company of the
accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submits
that when the alleged transaction took place, the present
applicant was not even present in the Country as he was at
Vietnam. He also submits that when the present applicant was at
Vietnam, the accused Nos.1 and 2, without the knowledge of the
present applicant, directly contacted and dealt with the
complainant for purchase of bulk goods by showing fabricated
and false conversation, purchase orders and screen shots with
the Apple India Company. He submits that present applicant,
upon return from Vietnam, smacked of something fishy about ill-
will and dishonest intention of both the other Directors in
siphoning the investment made by the complainant, he resigned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
from the Directorship of the Company on 03.04.2025, which was
also approved by the Board of Directors. Learned senior advocate
Mr. Nanavaty further submits that the present applicant also
demanded the account details of the Company from the other
two Directors, however, as no satisfactory reply was given, the
applicant was left with no other option but to lodge the FIR
against both the other two Directors on 12.04.2025 with the
Crime Branch Police Station, Bhopal for the offence punishable
under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) of the BNS, 2023 as the
complainant has been made a scapegoat by the other two
Directors, pursuant to which, the investigation commenced, and
during the course of investigation, both the other two Directors
came to be arrested by the concerned investigating officer, and
they are in judicial custody at Bhopal.
5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submits that,
however, during the interregnum, pursuant to the written
complaint given by the complainant herein, the applicant was
summoned by the investigating officer to appear before it on
10.05.2025, against which, a detailed reply was given by the
present applicant. Thereafter, the present applicant preferred
anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court being
Criminal Misc. Application No.3738 of 2025, which came to be
disposed of by the learned Sessions Court with a direction to the
investigating officer to give seven days prior notice to the
applicant before making his arrest, if any cognizable offence is
made out. Then, pursuant to the aforesaid order granting
protection to the applicant, the applicant appeared before the
investigating officer on 23.05.2025, 28.05.2025 and on
23.06.2025 and supplied all necessary documents and even
recorded his statement, and as such, when the present applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
has already handed over the necessary documents and extended
full cooperation to the investigating officer, now there is no need
for his custodial interrogation. Learned senior advocate Mr.
Nanavaty also submits that, in fact, at the time of submitting
charge-sheet against the other co-directors at Bhopal, the
concerned investigating officer over there had collected number
of documents, which shows that whatever amount received by
the Company of the accused from the complainant, was then
transferred into the account of one Anjani International through
the different accounts of accused No.2- Sodharm Jain. Even in his
statement recorded by the Bhopal Police, he has very
categorically stated that he was having a mala fide intention and
his plan was to flee away after siphoning away the money of the
complainant, and as such, the said statement of the co-accused
is self-explanatory in terms of modus adopted in duping the
complainant. He further submits that from the ledger account
collected by the investigating officer, it clearly appears that
whatever amount transferred by the complainant in the account
of the company of the accused, had been transferred in the
different accounts of the accused No.2, and then from his
account, the amount was transferred in the account of Anjani
International. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further
submits that the applicant happens to be the cousin of the
accused Nos.1 and 2, and keeping trust upon them, had entered
into the business transaction with them and formed a Company
without there being any knowledge about their ill-intention.
6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submits that
one another FIR was also registered against the accused Nos.1
and 2, and they had been transferred to Bhopal through transfer
warrant. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty also submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
that the present applicant has already put criminal law into
motion by filing an FIR against the real culprits who are directly
or indirectly involved and responsible for the alleged acts of
cheating to the complainant. The so called allegations of cheating
and fraud is not at the behest of applicant. He submits that the
applicant has never received a single penny from the investment
made by the complainant nor has diverted or used for his own
purpose and gain. Hence, the applicant cannot be fastened with
the penal liability. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty further
submits that even after the retirement of the applicant from the
directorship of the company, the other co-accused continued to
indulge into fiscal/business transactions with the complainant,
which replicates that the applicant was never a party to the
commercial transactions. Moreover, it is also imperative to
arraign the Company as an accused, and in the absence of
Company having been joined as accused in the criminal
proceedings, the Directors, either existing or erstwhile, cannot be
fastened with the vicarious liability. He also submits that the
present applicant was induced and appointed as Director in the
Company with very limited functions, i.e., fixing rate of goods and
introducing traders for purchase of mobile phones, whereas
Director Sodhram Jain was looking after the function for purchase
and delivery and Director Abhishek Jain was looking after the
functions for billing and accounts. It is pertinent to note that the
present applicant was never entrusted with the charge of day-to-
day affairs of the Company, nor was made authorized
person/signatory to deal with the finance more particularly with
the Bank. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submits that the
present applicant has been made a scapegoat in the entire
controversy, as looking to the overall facts and circumstances of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
the present case, the present applicant should be the witness
instead of an accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty
further submits that the accused No.4-Nirmal Jain, i.e, the father
of the applicant, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail
by the trial court. Moreover, the applicant does not have any past
antecedents. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty 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 senior
advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts,
the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni
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 applicant is
clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint. Learned APP Mr.
Soni further submits that after a thorough inquiry into the
offence, the investigating officer reached to the conclusion that
basic and essential ingredients to constitute the offence against
the accused persons are clearly found out, and therefore, the FIR
came to be lodged against the accused persons named in the FIR.
He submits that it is an admitted position of fact that the present
applicant was one of the Directors of M/s SIA KIA Trading Pvt.
Ltd., and he introduced the complainant with the other Directors
of the Company, and at the instance of the present applicant, the
complainant had entered into business transactions with the said
company. Therefore, prima facie, involvement of the present
applicant is clearly found out. Learned APP Mr. Soni submits that
so far as the accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, two another
FIRs have also been registered against them, one at Delhi and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
another by the present applicant at Bhopal, wherein both the
accused Nos.1 and 2 have been arrested and are in judicial
custody. Learned APP Mr. Soni also submits that prima facie
evidences have been found against the present applicant and the
clear role of the applicant is shown in the FIR. He submits that the
present applicant and the other accused, in connivance with each
other, has played a fraud and cheated the complainant to the
tune of Rs.26,34,95,900/- which is a huge amount, and as such,
to reach to the bottom and to uncover the truth of the scam and
the fraud played by the accused, the custodial interrogation of
the present applicant is required for the fair and true
investigation. Learned APP further submits that from the contents
of the FIR as well as the affidavit filed by the investigating officer,
it appears that the present applicant is the kingpin of the entire
scam, and therefore also, his custodial interrogation is very much
necessary. Moreover, the alleged transactions took place during
the period between 17.03.2025 and 11.04.2025, and during the
said period, the applicant was the Director of the said Company
and was handling the day to day affairs and all the dealings were
done with the present applicant. Thus, from the FIR as well as
the materials collected so far, it appears that the present
applicant has actively participated in the commission of the
offence, and this is a case where the documentary evidences are
to be collected by the investigating officer from the applicant,
and if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there are all
chances that the said evidences will be tampered with and even
there is a possibility of the destruction of evidence, and
therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. Moreover, filing
of an FIR against the co-accused by the present applicant is a
deliberate attempt being made by the present applicant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
escape from the clutches of law, and therefore, considering the
above stated aspects, at this stage, the Hon'le Court may not
exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Tarun Rawat appearing for the
original complainant has also opposed the present bail
application and submits that almost all the points have been
covered by the learned APP, and as such, he would like to adopt
all the arguments canvassed by the learned APP, and prays that
the present bail application may not be entertained.
9. 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
touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused,
should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(a) That, the FIR is dated 23.07.2025, for the offences
alleged to have been taken place during the period
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
between 17.03.2025 and 23.07.2025, and as such,
there appears to be a delay in registering the FIR, and
there is no explanation worth the name about such
delay in registering the FIR is found out from the
documents on record, or the Court being apprised by
the prosecution as well as the learned advocate for
the complainant regarding the same during the
arguments;
(b) That, from the FIR, it appears that the role attributed
to the present applicant is very limited, i.e, that he
introduced the complainant with the other Directors of
the Company, and except the same, no other overt
act is attributed to the present applicant in the entire
body of the FIR. It also appears from the materials
that initially the accused Nos.1 and 2 were the
Directors of SIA KIA Trading Pvt. Ltd. and later, as they
were in need of fiscal aid for the purpose of their
business, they contacted the present applicant who
was long standing in the said business, and joined him
as the Director in the said Company with the very
limited functions of fixing the rate of goods and of
introducing the traders;
(c) That, from the materials placed on record, it appears
that the present applicant was not entrusted with the
charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company nor was
made authorized person/signatory to deal with the
finance more particularly with the Bank;
(d) That, from the Bank details collected by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
investigating officer during the course of
investigation, it appears that the present applicant
has not gained any monetary benefits out of the
alleged transactions;
(e) That, whatever amount deposited by the complainant
in the account of the Company was then transferred
in the account of one Anjani International through the
different accounts of the accused No.2-Sodharm Jain;
(f) That, when the applicant was at Vietnam, the
documents, showing the business transactions with
the Apple India Company was forwarded to the
complainant by the accused Nos.1 and 2;
(g) It appears that the applicant is a 36 years old man,
indulged into the said business since long, and there
is not a single instance of any complaint or FIR being
registered against him throughout his entire stint;
(h) That, the period of alleged transactions is stated to be
from 17.03.2025 to 23.07.2025, and it is found out
from the record that, the present applicant had
already resigned as the Director of the Company on
03.04.2025, i.e, just within 15 days from the
commencement of the alleged transactions, and
even after the resignation of the applicant, the
complainant continued to deal with the other two
Directors, and as such, solely on the ground that the
applicant was the erstwhile Director, he cannot be
fastened with any criminal liability without there being
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
any material evidence being brought on record;
(i) That, the co-accused, I.e, the father of the present
applicant has already been enlarged on anticipatory
bail by the trial court;
(j) That, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon
documentary evidence, and only for the purpose of
collecting those documents, the arrest of the
applicant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, seems to be not necessary;
(k) That, from the record, it appears that even the
present applicant has filed an FIR against the other
two Directors at Bhopal with the very same set of
allegations;
(l) Moreover, the applicant does not have any past
antecedents;
(m) That, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in
the investigation;
10. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
11. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191011250215 of 2025
registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, 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 18.09.2025 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16888/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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-
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
12. 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.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
