[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Yash @Yashlo S/O Chandubhai Gondaliya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 11386 of 2026
==========================================================
YASH @YASHLO S/O CHANDUBHAI GONDALIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/05/2026
ORDER
1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2) The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191067250195 of 2025
registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for
the offences under Sections 61(2)(a), 316(2), 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS
and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.
3) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed.
Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Offence took
place between 06.07.2025 and 19.08.2025, whereas the FIR has been
lodged on 20.12.2025. He is not named in the FIR and allegation
against the applicant is that he has rented his bank account in the
alleged cyber crime fraud. He has no past antecedent. He therefore
submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant
may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
4) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
opposed the present application and prayed for dismissal of the
regular bail application on the ground that the applicant is involved in
a serious economic offence. It is submitted that the applicant, along
with other co-accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy and induced
the complainant to invest money in forex trading through the app
"dex-trade.vip" downloaded via WhatsApp at the instance of Ganika
Yadav and Nitish Mentor. It is alleged that the accused persons
created a fake trading platform and WhatsApp groups in the name of
"Market ETH Analysis" to gain the trust of the complainant and
persuaded him to invest money on the promise of high profits in
forex trading. On such inducement, the complainant transferred a
total amount of Rs.26,98,690/- into different bank accounts provided
by the accused through WhatsApp. Thereafter, when the complainant
attempted to withdraw the invested amount, the accused demanded
various charges and ultimately did not allow withdrawal of the
money, thereby cheating the complainant. It is further submitted that
out of the total defrauded amount, Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred in
Layer 1 into the applicant's bank account opened in the name of Yash
Enterprise maintained with Bank of Baroda bearing No.
38720200000784, and the said amount was immediately transferred
to other bank accounts. The investigation also revealed that total
transactions amounting to Rs.2,16,69,545/- were carried out through
the applicant's bank account. Therefore, considering the active
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, the present
application does not deserve to be entertained. It is also contended
that mere filing of the chargesheet is not a ground for granting bail,
and if the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of
tampering with the evidence.
5) Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
having gone through the evidence produced on record, it appears that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
the applicant-accused in collusion with the other accused entered into
a pre-planned criminal conspiracy. From 06/07/2025 to 19/08/2025, at
the instance of the co-accused and for the purpose of forex trading,
the complainant downloaded the app "https://dex-trade.vip/" through
Whats App. Further, on the pretext of earning profits through forex
trading in the stock market, the accused created their own trading
platform. The accused also created a social media platform namely
the "ETH Analysis" Whats App group, and through continuous
messaging and by gaining the trust of the complainant, induced him
to deposit a total amount of Rs.26,98,690/- in different bank accounts
provided through Whats App in the name of forex trading. It further
appears that the accused persons cheated the complainant by not
permitting withdrawal of the invested amount and by demanding
different charges for processing the transactions. During the course
of investigation, it was further revealed that total 22 cyber
complaints have been registered against the accused from different
States. It also appears that, during the period from 03/07/2025 to
04/08/2025, upon verification of the NCRP Portal, total transactions
amounting to Rs.2,16,69,545/- were carried out through the
applicant's Bank of Baroda account bearing No. 36720200000784. So
far the present accused is concerned, it is needless to say that the
applicant has played active role in the offence and allegation of
abetment and conspiracy is also there. So far conspiracy is there,
hardly direct evidence would be available and it also may be inferred
from the present circumstances.
6) It is needless to say that in cases of conspiracy, direct evidence is
hardly available. Considering the societal and larger interest, as well
as the nature of the economic offense, if the applicant is released on
bail, it could adversely affect the investigation with respect to the
other accused. There is also a possibility of tampering with evidence.
In conspiracy cases, the Court must infer the role of the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
based on attending circumstances and other facts or evidence led by
the prosecution.
7) It is difficult to unearth the large-scale scam, identify the syndicate,
and ascertain the modus operandi if the accused is released on bail.
Granting bail at this stage would amount to giving protection and
leeway to persons involved in unethical and immoral activities. Due to
the acts of the accused persons, the faith of the Government, the
public, and recruitment agencies has been shaken. Public confidence in
the system would be undermined. Considering the seriousness and
sensitivity of the matter, release of the accused on bail would send a
wrong message to society and may hamper the investigation as well as
lead to tampering with the evidence, thereby giving undue advantage
to the wrongdoers.
8) In the aforesaid background, serious economic offences are disclosed
and the involvement of the accused is established. Since the offence
is in the nature of a white-collar and socio-economic offence, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused. The offence appears
to have been committed in a well-planned and systematic manner. It
is not merely an offence against an individual, but one affecting
society at large and public welfare. Therefore, a delicate balance is
required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the
accused and the larger societal interest.
9) The applicant is involved in a white-collar economic offence.
Economic offences are generally committed with careful planning
and deliberate design for personal gain, without regard to the
consequences on society. In such offences, the accused persons show
complete disregard for the interest of the community. White-collar
crimes adversely affect the national economy and national interest.
Such offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracy and huge financial
loss, are required to be viewed seriously and examined differently.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
This is not a case where the applicant has been arraigned merely on
the basis of statements of co-accused or suspicion; rather sufficient
material has been collected against the applicant during the
investigation.
10)Since the co-accused are absconding and custodial interrogation of
the said accused is required, if the present applicant is released, the
volatile nature of the data, which includes use of dummy accounts
and online transactions done, the interest of the prosecution is
required to be considered. As the offence in question involves
electronic volatile data and financial in nature, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
& Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it has been observed
in paragraph 5 as under in paragraph:
"The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed
in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard
for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer
justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the National Economy and National Interest."
11)So far as the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the
applicant that the applicant be released as the charge sheet has been
filed is concerned, another important aspect that needs to be
considered is that mere filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient
ground to enlarge the accused on bail, as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The
State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. If the applicant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
released, the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled
out, especially since the co-accused are absconding, and the volatile
nature of the data could affect the integrity of the evidence.
12)Herein, the allegation against the applicant is that by giving
temptation of unrealistic gain and profit by investing money in stock
market without any authority and using bank accounts, accused
persons have defalcated the money. Not only that, co-accused are also
yet to be arrested and investigation in that regard is still going on and
other complaints from other States are also received and therefore, if
the applicant is released on bail then the possibility of tampering with
evidence cannot be ruled as the evidence in the present case is
electronic and volatile in nature and therefore, considering the
aforesaid facts and keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias
Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, wherein it has
been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism
but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a
manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is
jeopardized.
13)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation
Office Vs. Nittin Johari, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 165, has held that as
under:
11. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section 212(7) of
the Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6) with respect to
grant of bail is in addition to those already provided in the Cr.P.C. Thus,
it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail
under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 Specifically, heed must be paid to
the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect
of economic offences. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the
following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V.
Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2013 7 SCC 439:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations."
This Court has adopted this position in several decisions,
including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement
(Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Government of India,
(2015) 16 SCC 1, and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13
SCC 751. Thus, it is evident that the above factors must be taken
into account while determining whether bail should be granted
in cases involving grave economic offences."
14)As submitted by learned APP, other co-accused are still absconder
and out of reach. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh
Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary & Ors, in Leave to
Appeal (Cri.) No.19708/2025 dated 17.02.2026, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11386/2026 ORDER DATED: 11/05/2026
undefined
"We may note that the value of life and liberty to members of society is not limited
only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their
economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are
cheated of their hard-earned monies by conman, who make it their life's pursuit to
exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must
necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders pleas for grant of
bail."
15)For the foregoing observations and reasons, this Court is of considered
view that the applicant is involved in international racket and
possibility to invoke other provisions of law as economic offence is
there, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this
stage. Merely offence is triable by JMFC Court and punishable upto 7
years, is not a ground to release on bail as economic offence is
required to be visited at different class as investigation still going on.
Hence, present application does not deserve any consideration. Hence,
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
