Prabhat Ashokkumar Chhogalal Maheshwari Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to Prabhat Ashokkumar Chhogalal Maheshwari in an FIR alleging forgery and misuse of E-way Bills involving Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegation was that, between September 2018 and June 2025, the applicant used the complainant’s name and password and forged E-way Bills amounting to ₹1,60,11,837, resulting in alleged GST liability of ₹24,42,484 along with three times penalty. The Court noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence.
The High Court considered that a substantial part of the investigation was over, none of the alleged offences was punishable with life imprisonment or death, the applicant had been in custody since 20 August 2026, nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from him, he had no past antecedent and the offences were triable by the JMFC Court. It also noted that commencement and conclusion of the trial would take time.
The applicant’s brother had filed an undertaking that ₹29,30,000 would be deposited before the trial Court within one month of the applicant’s release and that any further amount subsequently shown to have come into the applicant’s account from or in connection with M/s. Crown Incorporation would also be deposited. The Court required the applicant to abide by this undertaking and to file a similar undertaking after his release.
Relying upon Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012] 1 SCC 40 and Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, the High Court referred to the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” and personal liberty under Article 21. It consequently allowed the application subject to a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount and the specified conditions, including deposit of ₹29,30,000.
Cases Discussed
- Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012] 1 SCC 40 (Supreme Court) — Considered by the High Court while applying the principles governing grant of bail and protection of personal liberty pending trial.
- Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240 (Supreme Court) — Considered in support of bail jurisprudence, including the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Leave to amend.
[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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191013260253 of 2026 registered with Krushnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Substantial part of investigation is over. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. The applicant 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.
[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 the applicant has committed an offence of forgery and therefore, considering the conduct and manner in which the offence has committed, present application does not deserve consideration.
[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) Substantial part of investigation is over;
(2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ;
(3) Applicant is behind the bar since 20.08.2026;
(4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
(5) No past antecedent.
(6) Offence is triable by JMFC Court.
(7) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time.
(8) The allegation against the applicant is that the complainant and the applicant were initially working in the same company, and thereafter, both started business. It is alleged that, during the period from September 2018 to June 2025, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant, the applicant used the complainant’s name and password of Crown Corporation and forged E-way Bills amounting to Rs. 1,60,11,837/-. It is further alleged that the applicant forged the signatures on the said E-way Bills and, by using such forged documents, submitted returns to the GST Department, thereby causing GST liability amounting to Rs. 24,42,484/- along with three times penalty. In connection with the aforesaid allegations, FIR came to be registered against the applicant for the alleged forgery and misuse of E-way Bills. The case is primarily based upon documentary evidence. Even otherwise, to show the bonafide, the brother of the applicant has filed an undertaking dated 16.09.2026 and stated as under:-
“(a) that the applicant immediately upon his release on bail and in any event within one week thereof, shall file before this Hon’ble Court a similar undertaking in his own name;
(b) that the entire sum of Rs.29,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty thousand only) shall be deposited before the learned trial Court being the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad city, within one month from the date of the release of the applicant on bail, there to remain and to abide the final result of the trial or to be dealt with as that court may direct and
(c) that if, upon the conclusion of the investigation, any further amount over and above the said sum of Rs.29,30,000/- is shown to have come into the account of the applicant from or in connection with M/s. Crown Incorporation such further amount shall also be deposited by us before the concerned Court.”
[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. 11191013260253 of 2026 registered with Krushnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City 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/she 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;
(g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.
(h) The applicant shall abide by the terms and conditions of the Undertaking filed by his brother and shall deposit a sum of Rs.29,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty thousand only) before the learned trial Court within one month from the date of his actual release. During investigation or upon the conclusion of the investigation, any further amount over and above the said sum of Rs.29,30,000/- is shown to have come into the account of the applicant from or in connection with M/s. Crown Incorporation, the same shall be intimated to the applicant and such further amount shall also be deposited by the applicant before the concerned Court. At the time of release from the jail, the applicant shall also file the same undertaking as filed by the brother of the applicant. Upon deposit the said amount, the same shall be invested in FDR subject to outcome of the trial.
[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.
