Chandresh Lalitbhai Soni Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court considered an application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11191065250385 of 2025 registered at Narol Police Station, Ahmedabad City. The applicant sought release on bail, contending that continued incarceration served no useful purpose and undertaking to comply with conditions imposed by the Court. The prosecution opposed bail on allegations of cheating involving purchases of goods and dishonoured cheques while investigation remained in progress.
According to the prosecution, the applicant purchased goods from the first informant between 26 November 2022 and 19 September 2023 worth Rs.1,51,99,220, against which payments of only Rs.24,59,681 had been made. The applicant had been in custody since 31 March 2025. The Court considered the prima facie case, the accused’s availability for trial, and the possibility of witness interference or evidence tampering. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40.
Considering the nature of the dispute, allegations, gravity of the accusation and the applicant’s role, the Court allowed regular bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of like amount. The order imposed conditions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, required disclosure of residential address, contact details and immovable properties, directed monthly police-station attendance for six months, and prohibited foreign travel without permission. The applicant was also required to surrender any passport, and the trial court retained power to act in the event of breach.
In a further order, the original complainant’s advocate appeared after the initial order had been dictated and objected that the matter had proceeded without his participation. He alleged that the applicant was a habitual offender, referred to alleged fraud involving other victims and substantially larger amounts, and raised concerns about antecedents, bank recovery proceedings, dishonoured cheques and risk of absconding. The Court heard the advocate and took his written objections on record, while noting that no appearance for the complainant had previously been filed.
The Court observed that the commercial transactions took place between November 2022 and September 2023, whereas the FIR was lodged on 29 March 2025, and that the first informant had not explained the delay. It found that the objections did not disentitle the applicant to bail and described the dispute, on the allegations before it, as appearing purely civil in nature but given a criminal colour. The supplied extract ends at this finding in the further order; it does not identify the applicant by name or provide the final signature or any subsequent directions following that paragraph.
Cases Discussed
- Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. — (2012) 1 SCC 40
FULL TEXT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191065250385 of 2025 registered with Narol Police Station. Ahmedabad City.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that there is a prima facie case of cheating against the present applicant along with the other co-accused, as the present applicant had promised payments and had issued cheques in that regard. However, those cheques had been dishonoured. The present applicant had purchased goods from the first informant for the period commencing from 26.11.2022 to 19.9.2023. However, no payments were made by the present applicant to the first informant. The investigation of the offence is still in progress. Learned APP therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. As per the case of prosecution, the present applicant had purchased goods from the first informant for the period commencing from 26.11.2022 to 19.9.2023. The present applicant had purchased the goods from the first informant worth Rs.1,51,99,220/-. It is the case of prosecution that out of the aforesaid amount, the payment only to the tune of Rs.24,59,681/- were made and the remaining amount is still not paid. Having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in the present offence, the application deserves consideration.
7. This court has considered the following aspects:
(a)As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 31.3.2025.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
8.Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicant Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicant accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicant Accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that the applicant shall:
(a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m..
(g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
(h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the Applicant does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
9. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.
10.If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
Manshi
FURTHER ORDER
1. After the aforesaid order was dictated in the first session, learned advocate Mr.Pranav Thakkar on behalf of the original complainant appeared before the court in the second session and mentioned that this matter was listed before this court on 23.4.2025 and this court had instructed the matter to be listed on 25.4.2025, however the matter came to be listed today without there being any instructions in that regard of this court. Though learned advocate for the applicant was aware that he was appearing for the original complainant, he has not informed about the matter being listed today and had conducted the matter before this court behind his back.
2. In this regard it is required to be noted that learned advocate Mr.Pranav Thakkar has not filed his appearance in the present application for the complainant, nor this court was informed that he was going to appear on behalf of the complainant. The matter was listed in the cause list of this court. However, this court has heard learned advocate Mr.Pranav Thakkar appearing for the original complainant and has also taken the written objections filed by him opposing the present application on record.
3. He further submitted that the present applicant is a habitual offender. The offence in the present case is not as simple as it is sought to be projected by the other side. The offence involves the amount to the tune of Rs.8.64 crores and in the present FIR, scam of Rs.4 crores is involved. He further submitted that such fraud is committed by the present applicant with ten other victims which indicates that this is a modus operandi on part of the present applicant in committing such offences. 3.1He further submitted that the other family members of the present applicant are also involved in the offence. The applicant has suppressed the material fact of other antecedents registered against him, though the bail application filed by him before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed only on the ground of his antecedents. 3.2It was also contended that the applicant and his company have committed the fraud in payment of dues of the banks of the substantial amount and the proceedings for recovery of the said amount including the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have been initiated against them. It is also submitted that the applicant is involved in issuing post-dated cheques to various suppliers. However, the intention on part of the present applicant in getting those cheques honoured is absent, which indicates that there was an intention on part of the present applicant of cheating since the inception and therefore the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating are clearly made out. It was further contended that if the applicant is released on bail, the applicant will abscond and will not be available for the purpose of trial. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
4. This court has given reasons for allowing the present application in the earlier part of this over. In addition to those reasons, it is also required to be noted that admittedly the transaction between the present applicant and the first informant had taken place between 26.11.2022 to 19.9.2023 for which the FIR came to be lodged on 29.3.2025, i.e. only recently. Upon perusal of the FIR it appears that delay caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the first informant. The contentions which are raised on behalf of the original complainant are not such that it would disentitle the applicant for grant of bail.
5.Having regard to the averments and the allegations made in the FIR and the dispute involved in the present offence, it appears to be purely of civil nature, which is sought to be given a criminal color.
