[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Divyarajsinh Rajendrasinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 8 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11149/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 11149 of 2026
==========================================================
DIVYARAJSINH RAJENDRASINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N H PARMAR(11277) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MH SHEKHAWAT(7194) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/05/2026
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.I-11189004252318 of 2025 registered
with "B Division Morbi City Police Station, Morbi, for the offences under
Sections 111 (2) (B), 316 (5), 318 (4) and 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 .
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the allegation against the applicant is that he has facilitated the co-accused,
who are absconders by providing account and the amount of cyber-fraud is
transferred to these accounts and the applicant has withdrawn these
amounts and gave it to the main accused. For this act, the applicant has
received 3% commission. It appears that there were three different
accounts opened in HDFC Bank, South Indian Bank and TMD Bank and
allegedly an amount of Rs.12,86,919/-, Rs.6,30,262/ and Rs.1,11,000/- is
deposited and withdrawn from these accounts. He submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and now
nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Chargesheet has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11149/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
filed. 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 has opposed
the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for
regular bail on the ground that applicant is involved and he has played
active role in the offence. There are similar 38 offences registered against
him. Therefore, she prayed that present application may be dismissed.
[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 and are triable by the Court of JMFC;
(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 23.12.2025;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(5) The applicant is having 38 similar such offences however the accused is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11149/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
governed by presumption of innocence unless and until proved guilty;
(6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time.
(7) Co-accused is granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 4.5.2026.
[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
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.I-
11189004252318 of 2025 registered with "B Division Morbi City Police
Station, Morbi, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11149/2026 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
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 enter District Morbi for a period of six months except for
marking presence before the concerned police station and/or for
attending Court;
(h) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall
issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.
[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)
R.S. MALEK
