[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dharaben Mihirbhai Parikh vs State Of Gujarat on 15 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
CHARGESHEET) NO. 11696 of 2026
==================================================
DHARABEN MIHIRBHAI PARIKH & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE WITH MR. VIJAY O SHARMA(6701) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. VINAY B. VISHEN, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HAMESH NAIDU, ADVOCATE for the complainant
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 15/05/2026
ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned
advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
complainant.
[1] 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.
11191011260123 of 2026 registered with DCB Police
Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 54 and 3(5) of the BNS.
[2] The facts of the case are as follows:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
[2.1] The case of the prosecution is to the effect that present
applicants along with other co-accused are working as
investment agents having office at Ahmedabad and they assured
the complainant that they will make good profits on investing in
the stock market. The accused with the help of each other
opened the demat account of the complainant and her company
and from 22.12.2023 to 01.12.2025 have received
Rs.2,16,50,000/- from the bank account of the complainant and
Rs.7,20,64,583/- from her company namely Kenzai Technology
for investing in stock market totalling Rs.9,37,14,583/-. The co-
accused used to send information about the investments to the
complainant from time to time. The co-accused used to give
false and forged stock profit valuation report with the symbol of
the company and letters from Kotak Securities Ltd., and
received money from the complainant and instead of investing
the money they used the same for their personal use without the
knowledge of the complainant. Thereafter, out of the above
amount the accused return Rs.2,27,45,850/-and remaining
amount of Rs.7,09,68,733/- and profit on the said amount has
not been returned to the complainant. In aforesaid background,
the present applicants along with other co-accused are alleged
to have been involved in commission of offence of cheating and
criminal breach of trust with the complainant.
[2.2] It is the case of the applicants that the they came to be
arrested on 29.04.2026, and produced before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein remand of 3 days was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
demanded by police which was rejected by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First class and applicants were sent to judicial
custody on date 30.04.2026. Since, then the applicants are in
judicial custody.
[2.3] It is the case of the applicants that the they submits that
the applicant preferred Regular Bail application before the City
Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad being Cr.M.A no. 3295 of
2026 and the said application came to be rejected vide order
dated 08.05.2026.
[2.4] The applicants therefore filed the present application
seeking regular bail before filing of the charge-sheet.
[3] Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of
investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered. Mr. Buch, learned advocate has submitted that both
the applicants are ladies and one after another complaints are
registered. No specific involvement on the part of the present
applicants ladies; merely they are shown as partners of the firm
and they are arrested on 29.04.2026. He therefore submits that,
considering the nature of the offence, the applicants may be
enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
[4] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
and Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate have opposed the present
application and requested to dismiss the present application for
regular bail on the ground that the applicants are very much
involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of
offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail
application. Learned advocates appearing for both the parties
have opposed the application also on the ground that the
present applicant No.1 came into contact with the complainant
and lured her to invest the amount after winning the trust. The
amount was siphoned into their accounts and there is direct
involvement on the part of the present applicants. They were
partners of the firm and they are named in the FIR. If released
on bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tampering with
evidence. Other offenses are also registered. Charge-sheet is yet
to be filed and if they are released on bail, possibility cannot be
ruled out that the applicants will flee from justice and tamper
with the evidence. Therefore, present application does not
deserve consideration.
[5] 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
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] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.
Following aspects have been considered:
(1) Substantial part of investigation is over;
(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life
sentence or death penalty ;
(3) Applicants are behind the bar since 29.04.2026;
(4) It is alleged that the present applicant Nos.1 and 2
are partners of the partnership firm, namely "MP
Fincorp Services" and the complainant had invested
money in the said firm;
(5) No role is attributed to present applicants that they
had forged any document or any letterhead of Kotak
Securities Limited or any other institute;
(6) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from
the applicants;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
(7) Applicant No.2 is a 70-year-old senior citizen lady
and applicant No.1 is also a lady. Both are ladies,
and no purpose would be served by continuing their
detention with stringent condition; present
application deserve consideration
(8) Offence is triable by JMFC Court.
(9) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will
take its own time.
[7] 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] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s 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 applicants on regular bail. Hence, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be
released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.
11191011260123 of 2026 registered with DCB Police
Station, Ahmedabad City on executing a personal bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) each with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
and subject to the conditions that they 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 a week till filing of the chargesheet and after
filing of the chargesheet, mark presence before the
concerned police station once in a month for a period of
six months;
(f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/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/contact number
without prior permission of Trial Court;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11696/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2026
undefined
(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which
learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the
bail of the applicants.
[9] The authorities will release the applicants only if they are
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] 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] 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 applicants on bail.
[12] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
