Ankur Gopalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 293 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ankur Gopalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.MA/26083/2025                                     CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                                                             Reserved On   : 18/12/2025
                                                                             Pronounced On : 02/02/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 26083
                                                   of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

                       ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

========================================================== ANKUR GOPALBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR IH SYED,SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) AND MR PANKAJ R CHHAJED(8667) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

CAV ORDER

1. The applicant, who is apprehending arrest at the

hands of Sarthana Police, Dist. Surat has preferred this

application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of

BNSS, 2023. The FIR came to be registered by way of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

C.R. No. 11210008250527 of 2025, for the offences

punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 317(2)

of the BNS, 2023, Section 66(D) of the IT Act and Section

3 of the GPID Act, 2003.

2. The applicant is mentioned as accused no. 4 in the

FIR. There are other 5 other co-accused also named with

the applicant in the said FIR.

3. The original complainant Smit Ashishbhai Vaghasia

by way of his FIR has stated that, he is related to Meet

Khokhar (accused no. 1) and both of them reside in the

same residential society. Meet had opened an office in

Deep Kamal Complex at Sarthana Jakaat Naka, Surat and

he used to frequently visit this office.

3.1 It is mentioned in the FIR that, Meet had lured the

original complainant to invest in Forex market promising

monthly return of 7% to 8%. The original complainant by

reposing trust in Meet had started investing in Forex

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

market.

3.2 The original complainant had introduced his uncle

Amit Vaghasia to Meet and both of them i.e. the original

complainant and his uncle started investing in Forex

market through META TRADER 5 application, which they

had downloaded upon instruction of Meet.

3.3 It is further mentioned in the FIR that, the original

complainant had also withdrawn Rs.9 lakhs from his

account, however, after some time, both their accounts

were reflecting minus balance.

3.4 Meet while winning over the trust of the original

complainant had informed him that, he along with other

co-accused including the applicant were looking after the

Forex trading business.

3.5 The original complainant had asked Meet Khokhar

and other co-accused including the applicant to return

the amounts of Rs. 92 lakhs which he and his uncle Amit

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

had invested, however, they had not done so and had

instead threatened him. Thus, the FIR came to be

registered against all accused including the applicant,

since all of them entered into a criminal conspiracy and

had lured the applicant and his uncle to invest Rs. 92

lakhs in all, and thereafter, not having returned the said

amount.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed

assisted by Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi and Mr. Pankaj

Chhajed, learned advocates for the applicant and learned

APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the State.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. IH Syed at the outset

has submitted that, the applicant is ready and willing to

cooperate with the investigation if he is granted

protection. Mr. Syed has submitted that, as per the FIR

the original complainant had first approached Meet, who

had opened an account in EONE FX and thereafter, the

account was transferred to SECURE FX. The applicant is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

concerned only with EONE FX, and till the account was

maintained with EONE FX, there was no complaint by the

original complainant. According to Mr. Syed, it was

Meet who had told the complainant to transfer the

account from EONE FX to SECURE FX. There is no iota

of evidence to show that the applicant was associated

with SECURE FX. The applicant is in Dubai since April

2025 i.e. before the FIRs came to be registered. Though it

is the say of the complainant that, he had paid the

amounts in cash, he is unable to show the source of the

said amounts. Mr. Syed has also drawn the attention of

the court towards the chart which is submitted, from

wherein it can be gathered that, till the account of the

original complainant was maintained with EONE FX,

profit had accrued, and the original complainant had also

encashed some of the said profit which was to the tune of

Rs. 9 lakhs. However, the balance amount after being

transferred to SECURE FX, had appeared zero. Hence,

learned Senior Advocate has submitted that, the

application be allowed and anticipatory bail be granted to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

the applicant.

6. Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, at the outset, has

raised preliminary and strong objection against the

maintainability of the present application submitting that,

the address of the applicant, though being mentioned as

of Dabhoi, Vadodara in the memo of petition, he has

affirmed the said petition at Dubai. The applicant is not

within the jurisdiction of this court. If at all he wants to

seek pre-arrest bail, he should be present within the

jurisdiction of this court today, when the petition is being

heard by the court. Learned APP has relied upon the

judgement in the case of Gurkirat Kalra vs. State of

Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 2586 in

support of his such contention.

6.1 Mr. Pandya has further submitted that, the applicant

has criminal antecedents and one more FIR has been

registered by the DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad

on 24.11.2025 for similar offences. So far as the role of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

the applicant in the offence is concerned, it would not be

possible to delienate or segregate at this juncture, as it

would be matters of evidence during the course of

investigation. Prima facie, there is evidence about the

applicant and other five co-accused being interconnected

and involved in the offence of luring investors and initially

showing them profits, and thereafter procuring more

investments, usurping their money. He has also the

drawn attention of this court towards the fact that,

notices under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 were issued to

the applicant, however, he had not remained present

before the Investigating Officer. The applicant is involved

in a serious offence, which is against the nation. The

prosecution is already trying to apprehend him through

official channels and LOC has also been issued against

him. Mr. Pandya has also drawn the attention of the

court towards the statements of witnesses who have

affirmed the fact that, the applicant and all the co-

accused were involved in the commission of the offence,

and together they had committed the offence.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

6.2 Mr. Pandya has further drawn the attention of the

court towards the reply given by SEBI stating that, EONE

FX , SECURE FX and the applicant along with other five

co-accused were not registered as an intermediary with

SEBI. The mobile number which was provided by the

applicant in the registration details of EONE FX was

false, and the address mentioned in the registration

details of EONE FX was of Dabhoi, Vadodara, Gujarat.

Learned APP has accordingly submitted that, there is

much more than it meets the eye so far as the present

offence is concerned, and considering his preliminary

objection coupled with the incriminating material which

has come on record during the course of the investigation

which has been conducted till date, the present

application should be rejected.

7. On perusing the investigation papers it can be

noticed that, one of the prosecution witnesses namely

Nitinbhai Govindbhai Panchal, who is an employee of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

accused no. 2 Vishal Sankdasaria has voluntarily given

his statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023

before the ACJM of Surat wherein, he has mentioned as

regards the role of the applicant as well as the other co-

accused, in the alleged business. This court would not

like to delve further into the details of the said statement

at this juncture.

8. It also appears that, the Reserve Bank of India had

declared Meta Trader V as an unauthorized trading

platform, which was used by the applicant and the co-

accused, having its origin in Cyprus. Further, the

Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 10.10.2025, had

informed the Investigation Officer of Udhna Police

Station, wherein FIR No. 11210047251103 of 2025 for

identical offence was registered, about EONE FX and

SECURE FX not having been authorized by the RBI as an

'authorized person' to deal in Forex under the Foreign

Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and so also META

Trader (MT-V) not having been authorized by RBI as an

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

'authorized person' to deal in Forex under FEMA, 1999.

So also, the RBI had stated that, the applicant as well as

other co-accused were not authorized as 'authorized

persons' to deal in Forex under FEMA, 1999. The

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had

intimated the DCP Zone II, Surat about EONE FX and

SECURE FX as well as the applicant and other co-accused

not being registered as an intermediary with SEBI.

Further, it can also be gauged that the Financial Conduct

Authority (FCA) which is the governing body in the

United Kingdom akin to SEBI in India, also having stated

that SECURE FX Capital Ltd. not being an authorized

firm.

9. On further perusing the investigation papers, it

appears that, in the registration details of EONE Capital

Ltd. the address of the applicant is mentioned as Dabhoi,

Vadodara whereas, the mobile number 7043397111

which has been mentioned is false and the same does not

belong to the applicant. Rather, the said mobile number

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

was registered in the name of one Francis Parmar Cyril, a

resident of Ahmedabad. The IO has also recorded

statements of various witnesses, who all have stated

about the investments they had done with the companies

of the applicant and the other co-accused, and after some

time, their respective accounts balance becoming zero. It

is pertinent to note that, the Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India has issued LOC against the

applicant, and apart from other three antecedents of the

applicant of identical nature, a fifth FIR also came to be

registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad on

24.11.2025, for identical offences.

10. Learned APP Mr. Pandya has relied upon the

judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in the case of Gurkirat Kalra (supra)

wherein the observations of the said High Court in

paragraphs no. 7 to 11 read thus:

"7. The Kerala High Court in Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police, (2011) 4 KLT 52 while

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

considering a similar issue has observed as under:-

"17. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under the section and the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. Sub- section (2) of Section 438 provides that when the court makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including those mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) in sub section (2). Clause (iii) thereof is "a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court." The aforesaid provisions would indicate that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to be present in India immediately before the final hearing. If the person concerned is not present in India, the court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court, as contemplated in clause (lil) of subsection (2) of Section 438. A person absent from India cannot leave India. The only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that a person who is not in India or who does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before a court in India. A blanket order cannot be passed to enable a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

person to wield that order whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter leave the country at his pleasure and flee from justice. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not intended for such a purpose at all."

8. Further, in Bail Appl. No. 3475 of 2022 Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala decided on 22.06.2022, the Kerala High Court has observed as under:-

"11. However, before considering the merits of this application, it is essential to advert to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the maintainability of this bail application. When the application was filed, petitioner was not in the country. It was alleged that petitioner fled from India after coming to know of the registration of the crime. Noticing the intention of the petitioner to subject himself to the jurisdiction of this Court, an interim order was issued 'not to arrest the petitioner'. On that basis, petitioner returned and is presently in Kerala.

12. Since the question regarding the maintainability of an application for pre-arrest bail while the applicant is residing outside the country, arises quite often, the said issue is considered. On the basis of decisions in Souda Beevi v. S.I. of Police 2011 (3) KHC 795) and Shafi S.M. v. State of Kerala 2020 (4) KHC 510 it was argued that the presence of the petitioner outside the country disentitles the applicant to seek pre-arrest bail.

13. A reading of the aforementioned two decisions shows that such an absolute

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

restriction has not been laid down by this Court. On the other hand, all that those two decisions say is that, at-least before the final hearing, the Court must be convinced that the applicant is within the jurisdiction of the Court so that the conditions if any imposed, could be effectively enforced.

14. Section 438 Cr. P.C. does not contain a restrictive mandate that a person residing outside the country cannot file an application for anticipatory bail. It is possible that a person can apprehend arrest even outside the country for an offence that occurred in India. With the advancement in investigative technology and communication, the various agencies of investigation could even be deployed to arrest a person outside the country. An apprehension of arrest can arise even while the applicant is residing outside the country. Thus, when a bona-fide apprehension exists, the statute confers power on such a person to seek protection from arrest. In the absence of any restrictive clauses in SECTION 438, restricting the right of a person residing outside the country from filing an application for pre-arrest bail, court cannot read into the provision such a restriction which the legislature did not incorporate.

15. In the decisions in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2020) 5 SCC 1], as well as Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, [(1980) 2 SCC 565], it was held that courts cannot read into section 438 Cr. P.C. a restriction, which the legislature had not thought it fit to impose. In fact, the Court

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

deprecated the practice of an over-generous infusion of constraints into section 438 and even observed that such restrictions can make the provision itself constitutionally vulnerable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed even by a person residing outside the country. However, the only limitation is that prior to the final hearing, the applicant must be inside the country to enable the court to impose and enforce conditions contemplated under the statutory provisions.

16. Section 438 Cr. P.C. has conferred a discretionary right on the higher courts to consider whether a pre-arrest bail ought to be granted under the particular circumstances of the case. The discretion conferred upon the superior courts of law, though not controlled by any specific guidelines, the same is not to be exercised arbitrarily. Law adjures such courts to utilize their trained discretion while considering an application for pre-arrest bail."

XXXXXXXXXX

9. The similar issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2023 (3) KHC 151, wherein it has been observed as under: -

XXXXXXXXXX

"20. The learned Single Judge has then posed the issue as to whether a person who is not in India can file an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. After considering the decision of the Apex Court in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

the case 'Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab', [(1980) 2 SCC 565], it was noted that one of the prime conditions in Section 438(1) is that the applicant accused must show that he has reasons to believe that he may be arrested for a non bailable offence and that, the belief that he may be so arrested, must be founded on reasonable grounds and mere fear is not relief, etc. It is thereafter that the learned Single Judge had noted in para 17 of the said decision, that Clause (iii) of Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. empowers the anticipatory bail court to impose conditions that the person shall not leave without the previous permission of the Court. Hence, it was observed that the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to present himself in India, immediately before the final hearing and if he is not present in India, the Court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he should not leave India without the prior permission of the Court, as conceived in Section 438(2) (ii), that, a person absent from India cannot leave India and therefore, the only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that a person, who is not in India or who does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before a court in India.

21. It was also held that a blanket order cannot be passed to enable a person to wield that order whenever he finds

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

pleasure to visit India and thereafter, leave the country at his pleasure and flee from justice and that, Section 438 Cr.P.C.

is not intended for such purposes at all.

XXXXXXXXXX

94. Therefore, one of the primary purposes and objectives in the grant of bail in criminal cases is to relieve the accused of imprisonment, if warranted and also to relieve the state of burden of keeping him, pending trial and to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance in the court whenever his presence is required. So, in other words, bail can be conceived as a security for the appearance of the accused on which he is released, pending trial or investigation, etc. So, one of the prime objectives and purposes of grant of ball is to relieve the accused of the imprisonment, if it is justified in terms of the parameters and criteria for grant of bail and thus, to relieve the state of burden of keeping him, pending trial and also to ensure that he co-operates with the investigation and trial. It is precisely for these reasons, that the Legislature in its wisdom has conceived that the bail court in its discretion may consider in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, as to whether to consider the imposition of conditions as in clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C., i.e., the accused person shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required and further that, he/she shall not leave India,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

without the permission of the court, etc. Therefore, once the anticipatory bail court, after due assessment is of the considered opinion that the discretion could be exercised for granting an order, as per Section 438(1) that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, then it is also the obligation of the court to consider the facts of the particular case and make a call, as to the necessity of imposing appropriate conditions, including those conditions, as envisaged in clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2). Since the cardinal purpose of bail is the security for appearance of the accused persons, on which he is released pending trial or investigation, etc. The courts have an obligation to consider the imposition of appropriate conditions, especially where the accused is abroad at the time of making the application, to consider as to whether conditions as in clauses (i), (iii), etc., are to be imposed.

101. If the Court is satisfied about the parameters and criteria for grant of bail in a given case, where the accused is abroad, then the court, in its discretion, could consider the grant of interim bail order subject to satisfying the strict requirements of Section

438. Once the Court grants such bail order, then it shall be the duty of the Police authorities and law enforcement agencies to honour such bail order granted to an accused, who is abroad, so that he can come to the country and execute the bail bonds, etc. Therein, the court can also stipulate that one of the conditions to regulate the grant of interim bail, which is an ancillary power under Section 438(1), by imposing condition

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

as in clause (i) of Section 438(2) that, the applicant/accused should come back to India and cooperate with the interrogation process within a specified, reasonable time limit, etc. As and when the court thereafter considers the disposal of the main application, it is found that the accused has not complied with the condition to come to India and to co- operate with the Police Investigation, etc., within the stipulated time limit, and the court is convinced about the lack of bona fides, etc., then the court will also have the discretion to dismiss the main application and to consequently order that the order granting interim bail will stand vacated and the main application itself could be dismissed. Such approach in appropriate cases would also be conducive of the legislative intention conceived in the engraftment of the discretion granted to the ball court to impose conditions as in Clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2) to regulate the grant of bail that the accused shall co-operate with the police investigation and shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court concerned. In other words, this option can be a basis for the court to be assured that the bail granted on interim basis is not abused or misused by the accused and to ensure the effectuation of the condition that the accused should be in India, as envisaged in Clause (iii) of Section 438(2)."

XXXXXXXXXX

10. It is a settled proposition of law that 'although an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed even by a person residing outside the country, however,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

the only limitation is that prior to the final hearing, the applicant must be inside the country to enable the Court to impose and enforce conditions contemplated under the statutory provisions' and admittedly the petitioner has filed the instant petition for anticipatory bail while being at Canada and till date he is not physically present in India, despite the fact that he has made defiance of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed the Court below, whereby he was protected and allowed to join the investigation, which he chosen not to do so for the reasons best known to him, therefore, this Court, considering it to be a sheer reluctance on the part of the petitioner for taking a judicial order in a casual manner, is not inclined to pass any blanket order to enable the petitioner to wield such order, whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter leaves the country at his pleasure and flee from justice, since, after registration of the FIR on 15.05.2024, the petitioner has approached for pre-arrest bail before the lower Court on 05.02.2025, which shows that intention of the petitioner is just to procure a blanket order to visit India for other purpose(s) and not to join the investigation and moreover, the petitioner has not made any averment in the petition or contention to satisfy this Court to prove his willingness and readiness to join the investigation, even this time.

Needless to observe here that a person sitting on an armchair in a foreign country cannot be allowed to take the 'justice delivery system' of a largest democracy of the world in such a casual manner that despite the fact that he has been granted protection by jurisdictional Court below to join the investigation, he chooses not to do so and is again knocking the doors of higher Courts for the same relief, without any justifiable and cogent reason for

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

defying the orders of the Court below, so, such kind of reluctant approach on the part of the petitioner, who is living abroad, will give wrong impact on the society at large, especially the NRI segment, to follow and adhere the procedural laws of the country and moreover, the right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to be exercised by the petitioner, who is living in Canada, in a casual manner to catch any train at his own pleasure, since it will lead to diminish the sanctity of 'justice delivery system' as well as deterrent effect qua adherence and compliance of the court orders.

11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner."

10.1 It is true that, the factual aspect of the aforesaid

judicial pronouncement is somewhat different than the

present case, however, the fact that the applicant being

in Dubai and not present before this court on the day of

final hearing is overt and obvious. Thus, the aforesaid

ratio can be made applicable in the present case.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court while redressing the issue

of victims of digital arrest related to forged documents in

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 3 of 2025,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

has taken note of Digital Arrest Scams, Investment Scams

and Part-Time Job Scams. The Hon'ble Apex Court while

issuing interim directions to strengthen the hands of the

CBI, which shall be the primary agency to investigate

cases reporting digital arrest scams, has categorically

observed that, other categories of scams would be

addressed in subsequent phases of the ongoing

investigation, to be monitored and supervised by the

Hon'ble Apex Court.

12. Though learned Senior Counsel Mr. Syed has

submitted that, the applicant is ready and willing to co-

operate with the investigation and come down to India

provided he is protected, in the opinion of this court, such

submission cannot be accepted as the same amounts to a

conditional and brazen demand. If at all the applicant

considers himself as a law abiding citizen of this country,

it is incumbent upon him to come down to India and

cooperate with the investigation. Also, as per his

submission, when he is not connected with the other co-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/26083/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026

undefined

accused, there should not be any reservation on his part

to return to India and co-operate with the investigation,

since he would be in a position to prove his innocence and

establish his non-involvement in the offence, which he

says, he has not committed.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the

applicant being prima facie involved in the offence which

is alleged against him and in the light of the observations

in the decision of Gurkirat Kalra (supra), this court is of

the opinion that discretion cannot be exercised in favour

of the applicant, and thus the present application is

rejected.

(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)

DIVYA