[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Maulik Nitikumar Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 7683
of 2026
==========================================================
MAULIK NITIKUMAR SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SAMIP R. KANANI(18625) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 21/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this 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.11191037240945 of 2025, registered with the Odhav Police
Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 506(1) of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation
at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that
the applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice. He
mainly argued that the present applicant was not shown as
an accused in the FIR; no role was attributed to him and no
notice was served to the applicant nor the applicant was
called upon for the purpose of investigation and surprisingly,
he was shown as accused in Column No.2 in the charge-
sheet, which came to be filed against the co-accused viz.,
Sweety Maulik Shah, who is a wife of the applicant. It has
also been argued that for the transaction of the year 2023,
FIR is filed in May, 2025, therefore, there is unexplained
delay of more than two years in filing the FIR and the
applicant is neither a Partner nor a Director nor a Promoter
nor in any manner connected or having authority in the
management or affairs of the entities, viz., `En Life Capsure
LLP' and `Quick Start 24 Group'; that there is no material
on record to show that any amount has been received by the
applicant or that he has derived any wrongful gain.
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further
states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions
that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
4. As against this, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has
opposed the grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence and requested not to entertain this
application. It is submitted that the report is filed on
03.06.2025 by the investigating officer for addition of Section
409 of the IPC, which came to be allowed and the name of
the present applicant was not stated and in another report,
which was filed on 18.,6.2025 by the investigating officer for
addition of Sections 3 and 4 of the GPID Act also, the name
of the present applicant was not stated, but the main
accused i.e. Sweety Maulik Shah, who is a wife of the
applicant, is stated. It is also submitted that present
applicant has acted as an agent and for the same, the
commission of Rs.4,31,001/- has been received by the accused
and the other accused - Pratik Shah happens to be the
brother-in-law of the applicant. It is further submits that
from the final forensic audit report, it transpires that in the
summary of the receipts and payments transactions, the
name of the accused is also shown. It is, therefore, prayed to
reject this application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the
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 merits of the case, which may prejudice
the case of accused, should be avoided, however, following
aspects have been taken into consideration :
a) Prima facie, there is no role of the applicant;
b) The applicant has no past antecedents;
c) The learned advocate for the applicant has
assured that the applicant will not flee from
justice and would be available during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
investigation as well as the trial.
d) Offence is not punishable with life
imprisonment or death penalty;
e) Nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered from the applicant;
f) No case for custodial interrogation is made
out;
g) Even considering the decisions in the case of
Naim Ahamed vs. State NCT of Delhi
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine (SC) 89 as
well as unreported decision of Bombay High
Court in the case of Anurag Ravindra
Umaley vs. The State of Maharashtra;
5.1 Further, the fact remains that the report was filed
on 03.06.2025 by the investigating officer for addition of
Section 409 of the IPC, which does not state the name of
the present applicant as an accused and another report was
filed by the investigating officer for addition of Sections 3
and 4 of the GPID Act, which came to be allowed and it
also does not state the name of the accused, but the charge-
sheet dated 28.08.2025 is taken into consideration, no distinct
role of the applicant is stated in the charge-sheet. In the
charge-sheet, the only role attributed to the present applicant
is being an agent, but no specific role is attributed to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
present applicant; that the only role attributed to the
applicant is being a Manager of Qsmart Retail Ltd. and also
being a Financial Advisor in Enlife Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
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 & Others,
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, the Court is inclined to allow the present
application.
7. In the result, this application is allowed by
directing that in the event of arrest/ appearance of the
applicant in connection with the above-referred FIR, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of
like amount on the following conditions that the applicant ;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
(b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) shall remain present at the concerned Police
Station on 30.04.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change 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) It is open to the police or the investigating agency
to move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7683/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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.
7.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this
Court while considering the bail application.
8. It is made clear that this 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 applicant who is granted pre-arrest
bail.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
M.H. DAVE/9
