[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Yogesh Jagdishbhai Raghavbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7793/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 7793 of 2026
==========================================================
YOGESH JAGDISHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI KUMBHANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 07/05/2026
ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11210062240060 of 2024 registered
with Cyber Crime Police Station, Dist. Surat, for the offences under
Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 3(5), 238 of the
BNS and Sections 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 3(1)
(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime
(GUJCTOC) Act.
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Chargesheet has been
filed. Having similarly situated co-accused are enlarged on regular bail and
therefore, present application may be enlarged on bail on the ground of
parity also. Complaint has been filed based on secret information. No
specific role is attributed to the applicant. Allegation against the applicant is
that in connivance with other co-accused, the accused withdrawn the
amount at the instance of other accused persons and said amount then
transferred in another account and provided kit. The applicant received a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7793/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
total of Rs. 2,55,000/- from the main accused Milan Darji from 30/08/2024 to
19/10/2024 as a commission for withdrawing Dirhams from an ATM in Dubai
and for providing an account kit. He therefore submits that, considering the
nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by
imposing suitable conditions.
[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposed the
present application and submitted that this is not a simple case of money
transaction. According to the prosecution, the applicant was actively
involved with the main accused, namely Milan Darji and Vivek Dakhra, in a
cyber fraud racket. It is alleged that, as per the information given by the co-
accused, cyber fraud money received from a Chinese gang through the sale
of USDT was managed in Surat by Ajay Italia through WhatsApp
communications. The prosecution further alleged that the gang used debit
cards linked to different bank accounts to withdraw Dirhams from ATMs in
Dubai. The accused procured several saving account kits on commission and
used them for cyber fraud transactions. According to the prosecution, gang
leader Milan Darji and his associates in Dubai were engaged in withdrawing
cyber fraud money deposited in various accounts by the Chinese gang
through ATMs in Dubai. During the investigation, Ajay Italia, who was
allegedly operating rented offices in Surat for activating bank accounts in
the names of different persons, was arrested by the Cyber Crime Police.
When accused Milan Darji returned to Surat from Dubai, he handed over
three debit cards to the applicant and instructed him to withdraw money.
Thereafter, the applicant, along with co-accused Chandresh Kakadia and
Karan, allegedly withdrew cyber fraud money from ATMs in Surat and
continued the illegal activities. The prosecution also pointed out that the
applicant travelled to Dubai three times between 11/08/2024 and
17/10/2024 and returned to Surat on 04/11/2024. Therefore, it clearly
reveals the involvement of the applicant in the offence. In view of these
allegations, an offence under GUJCTOC Act has been registered. Therefore,
it was argued that the applicant does not deserve to be considered for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7793/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
regular bail.
[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be
exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the
nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of
the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the
State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.
[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects
have been considered:
(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death
penalty ;
(3) Applicant is behind the bar since 29.08.2025;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(5) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.
(6) Co-accused who has received commission in their accounts, are enlarged
on regular bail by coordiante Bench of this Court and therefore, on the
ground of parity also (Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999), present application deserves consideration.
[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7793/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of
trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but
amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated
principle of bail jurisprudence is that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" as
well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.
[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature
of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, 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.
Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11210062240060 of 2024 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station,
Dist. Surat, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-
five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall
not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play
mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court
concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month
for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer
and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;
(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall
issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7793/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
[9.0] 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
issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
[10.0] 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.
[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations
of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court
while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
