[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ravindragiri Hasmukhgiri Kashigiri ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2103/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 2103 of 2026
========================================================
RAVINDRAGIRI HASMUKHGIRI KASHIGIRI VAIRAGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL B MEHTA(5319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta on behalf of the applicant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the
respondent-State.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has
preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11201017250001 of 2025 registered
with CID Crime Border Zone Police Station, Kutch West Bhuj for
offences punishable under Sections 54, 316(2), 316(5), 336(3), 340(2) of the
Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under section 24(1)(b) of the Immigration
Act after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2103/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
preferred by the applicants having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the
role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the
applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since
the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the
applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent - State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular
bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and
the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-
sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant
and the application may be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-
(i) The allegation in the FIR as regards the accused having
conspired and having defrauded the complainant and other victims
of huge sums of money which the applicant and other co-accused
had collected with the promise of getting them visa for various
countries.
(ii) It would appear in this regard that while the present applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2103/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
appears to be the person who had met the accused and who had
promised the complainant as regards getting him visa to different
countries, yet investigation has revealed that the present applicant
had outsourced the work of getting the visas to other accused and
whereas the forged visa etc. were prepared by the other accused.
(iii) It also appears that while a total Rs. 1 Crore and 6 lacs is stated
to be the amount which has been defrauded from the complainant
and other accused, yet it would appear that as of now, only Rs. 56
lacs are remaining to be paid.
(v) The submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant
under instruction that the applicant would deposit an amount of Rs.
10 Lakhs that is Rs. 5,00,000/- as a pre-condition for release and
Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of two months thereafter.
7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made in the First Information Report, without discussing
the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a
fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to
be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11201017250001
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2103/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
of 2025 registered with CID Crime Border Zone Police Station, Kutch
West Bhuj on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the learned Trial
Court as a pre-condition for being released on regular bail.
[b] upon depositing the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the learned trial
Court to issue process for release of the present applicant.
[c] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[d] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[e] not to leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of
the Sessions Court concerned;
[f] Mark presence in the concerned Police Station once in a
month for a period of six months;
[g] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to
the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residential address without prior intimation to the
I.O.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2103/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
[h] the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- be invested in a Fixed
Deposit, earning reasonable returns and whereas the learned
trial Court shall decide as regards the
apportionment/appropriation thereof as per the final decision
of the trial.
10. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
free to take appropriate action in the matter.
11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction
to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
12. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any
observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this
stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant
for being released on regular bail.
13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
