Jigneshkumar Vinubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/9194/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

                                                                                                              undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9194
                                                of 2026

                      ==========================================================
                                               JIGNESHKUMAR VINUBHAI PATEL
                                                           Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                          Date : 21/04/2026

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.

2. 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. 11189003260014 of 2026, registered with Morbi City 'A' Division Police Station, District: Morbi, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the present applicant is the owner of the firm D. Babulal Angadiya and co-accused, namely Dilipsinh Kanubhai Gohil, was working as the manager of the said firm and was handling its day-to-day administration and financial

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

transactions. It is alleged that co-accused has received and misappropriated an amount of Rs.24,96,850/- belonging to the complainant and Rs.21,93,850/- belonging to witness namely, Sunilbhai Narendrabhai Thakkar, totaling Rs.46,90,700/-. Thereafter, when the complainant and the witness repeatedly contacted co-accused on his mobile phone for return of thi\eir money, his mobile phone was found switched off. Subsequently, the complainant and the witness personally visited Morbi and approached the office of D. Babulal Angadiya to recover the said amount. At that time, the present applicant met them personally and assured them that co-accused was a trusted person of the firm, who had been handling its affairs for a long time. The applicant further assured them that their money would be returned at any cost and represented that the firm was old and reputed in Morbi. However, despite such assurance, neither the applicant nor the co-accused returned amount of Rs.46,90,700/- to the complainant and the witness. Thereafter, they allegedly stopped responding to their callas and continued to evade repayment. Thus, it is alleged that both accused persons, in connivance with each other, committed offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present offence on the basis of a false and fabricated complaint. It is further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 13.10.2025 whereas the complaint came to be lodged on 02.01.2026 without any explanation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

and therefore the complaint appears to be doubtful and an afterthought. It is further submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution itself, the entire amount in question was allegedly taken away by co-accused, namely Dilipsinh Kanubhai Gohil, and no specific role of actual receipt or misappropriation of money has been attributed to the present applicant. It is submitted that the present applicant has neither received any amount from the complainant not derived any financial gain or wrongful benefit out of the alleged transaction. No material has been collected from investigation to show that any part of the alleged amount was transferred to, retained by, or recovered from the present applicant. It is further submitted that the present applicant had already severed his relationship with co-accused and had published a public notice in the newspaper on 21.01.2026 declaring that he had no concern or relation with the said co-accused. It is also submitted that no recovery or discovery has been effected at the instance of the present applicant and nothing incriminating has been found from his possession or from any place connected with him. It is further submitted that the present applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and had already submitted his statement before the Investigating Officer on 10.01.2026. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned advocate has last submitted that the applicant is a businessman having a good reputation in society has no criminal antecedents and has fully cooperated with the investigation and therefore he deserves to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that 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.

4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted 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 be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail submitting that the present applicant has assured to returned the money to the complainant, and therefore, also he is vicariously liable to return the money to the complainant which has been swindled by the original accused Dilipsinh Kanubhai Gohil who was working with the firm of the present applicant. Therefore, he has argued that he custodial interrogation of the present applicant is also required to return the said amount and the huge amount of Rs.46,90,700/- yet to be recovered from the person who was working under the present applicant. He has further submitted that applicant is not cooperating to the investigation after lodging of the FIR, despite of the issuance

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

of 3 notices. Hence, argued to reject the present application.

6. 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) the applicant is the owner of the firm D. Babulal Angadiya; the accused No.1 Dilipsinh Kanubhai Gohil is working with the said Angadiya firm who is alleged to have swindle away the money;

b) the present applicant being owner of the Angadiya firm has given assurance that the complainant will get back his money that itself would not attract the criminal liability to the present applicant;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

c) prior to the filing of the complaint the applicant has given his statement before the investigating officer;

d) the applicant has issued notice in the newspaper not to deal with accuse No.1 Dilipsin, which is dated 21.01.2026, though post filing of the FIR shows the bonafide of the present applicant;

                      e)      the applicant has no past antecedents;

                      f)    the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that the

applicant will not flee from justice and would be available during investigation as well as the trial.

7. 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.

8. 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 applicant:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;

(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 28.04.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. or as and when called for;

(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 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.

8.1 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9194/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

bail application.

9. 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.

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(P. M. RAVAL, J) NITIN MAKWANA