Ajaybhai Naranbhai Vadher Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court dismissed Ajaybhai Naranbhai Vadher’s application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from an FIR registered at Paddhari Police Station, Rajkot Rural, concerning alleged cyber fraud, fraudulent financial transactions and related offences. The applicant submitted that he had been in custody since 8 March 2026, was not initially named in the FIR, had no past antecedent, and had merely provided a bank account to the principal accused. He also relied on the filing of the chargesheet and submitted that nothing remained to be recovered or discovered. The State opposed bail, alleging that he supplied bank account details to other accused, facilitated transfers, withdrawals and transportation of cash, and received substantial commissions. It referred to 1,123 complaints on the NCCRP portal involving transactions of ₹87,31,48,579, of which ₹6,26,30,579 was stated to be the disputed amount.
The Court considered the material as prima facie indicating an active role in a conspiracy involving third-party bank accounts, layered transfers, the Angadiya system and conversion of fraud proceeds into USDT. It noted the use of mule accounts, the difficulty of tracing funds transferred abroad, the continuing investigation into the money trail, and the fact that other accused remained absconding. Rejecting parity as an automatic entitlement, the Court referred to the seriousness of the alleged offence, the applicant’s attributed role and, in its own observations, past antecedents of a similar nature. It further considered the risk of interference with the investigation and tampering with electronic evidence, which it described as volatile.
Applying Supreme Court decisions concerning bail in economic offences, the Court held that filing a chargesheet was not by itself sufficient to justify release and that the matter being triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class did not warrant bail in the circumstances. It emphasised the need to balance personal liberty with larger societal interests and the requirements of an unhindered investigation. The application was dismissed and the rule discharged. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in the bail order, and the applicant was directed to cooperate.
Cases Discussed
- Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary & Ors., Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 19708/2025, decided on 17/02/2026 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for considering the economic well-being of victims and society when deciding bail in pecuniary offences.
- Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1370 (Supreme Court). Cited while rejecting an automatic claim to parity and considering the applicant’s role, antecedents and the gravity of the offence.
- Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486 (Supreme Court). Cited in examining parity and the circumstances relevant to bail in serious financial offences.
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari, 2019 (9) SCC 165 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for the factors governing bail in grave economic offences, including the nature of accusations, evidence, potential interference and public interest.
- Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for the proposition that filing a chargesheet does not by itself constitute sufficient ground for bail.
- State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 (Supreme Court). Referred to within the passage reproduced from Nittin Johari as adopting the stated approach to bail in economic offences.
- Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 SCC 1 (Supreme Court). Cited within the reproduced precedent for the approach to bail in grave economic offences.
- Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V. Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2013 7 SCC 439 (Supreme Court). Its observations, reproduced through Nittin Johari, identify economic offences as a distinct class and enumerate relevant bail considerations.
- Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for balancing personal liberty against conduct jeopardising the life or liberty of others.
- State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Others, (1987) 2 SCC 364 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for the wider harm caused by deliberately planned economic offences to the community, national economy and public confidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
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. 11213042260086 of 2026 registered with Paddhari Police Station, Rajkot Rural, for the offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 342(1) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.
3) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants 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. The applicant is in jail since 08.03.2026. Initially he is not named in the FIR, but subsequently he has been arraigned as an accused. At the best against the applicant is that, he has given his bank account to main accused Dalpatsinh except this, nothing incriminating alleged against the applicant. 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.
4) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and prayed for its dismissal, contending that the applicant is involved in serious offence of cyber fraud. During investigation, it came to light that the applicant handed over the Yes Bank account No.110189400000272 of Siddhi Enterprises, which is a firm of co-accused Paresh Buddhadev, to co-accused Ashwin Dave. Said co-accused Ashwin Dave handed over the details of this bank account to the co-accused. In this account, a large amount of cyber fraud and other fraud funds have been transacted and 2 applications of cyber fraud have been made on the N.C.C.R.P 1930 portal on this bank account and a total of Rs.9,44,000/- has been committed with different persons in cyber fraud. The applicant also handed over the Yes Bank account No.20100030059233 of Siddhi Enterprises, a firm of co-accused Paresh Buddhadev, to the accused Dalpat Singh along with co-accused Paresh Buddhadev and Manjit Chauhan and got a huge financial commission. A large amount of money has been transferred through fraud in which a total of 36 cyber fraud applications have been registered on the NCCRP portal and total of Rs.1,08,17,650/- worth of cyber fraud has been committed in which the applicant has direct involvement. Further, the applicant is associated with the suspect accused Dalpatsingh.
5) It is further submitted that total 1123 applications have been made on the NCCRP 1930 portal in this regard and total cyber fraud transactions worth of Rs. 87,31,48,579/- have been made and in it, the disputed amount is Rs.6,26,30,579/- of online fraud has been committed. Thus, the applicant, in connivance with other accused lured various firms and witnesses with business and partnership, obtained their bank accounts without their knowledge, used them for illegal financial transactions, transferred money for gaming and cyber fraud and other frauds, and contacted accused Manjitbhai, went to Bhilwara, Rajasthan, gave the details of the bank accounts, and made illegal transactions of about Rs.2 crore. The applicant and the co-accused have taken a large commission and by doing so, the applicant has received a large financial commission for the transactions of cyber fraud and gaming fraud and has benefited financially and the applicant was actively involved in the activities of illegal transactions, withdrawals and transportation of cash and the applicant has committed such acts by directly and indirectly helping and playing a role as a link and receiving a large financial commission.
6) In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned APP has argued that considering the active and significant role played by the applicant in the alleged offence, the present application does not deserve to be entertained. It is further contended that mere filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a ground for grant of bail and that, if released on bail, there is every likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence and influencing witnesses.
7) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the evidence on record, it appears that the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused, handed over the details of Yes Bank Account No.110189400000272, maintained in the name of Siddhi Enterprises, a firm belonging to co-accused Paresh Buddhadev, to co-accused Ashwin Dave. Thereafter, co-accused Ashwin Dave provided the details of the said bank account to the other co-accused. A substantial amount of money obtained through cyber fraud and other fraudulent activities was transacted through the said account. Two complaints relating to cyber fraud were registered on NCCRP No.1930 in connection with the said bank account, involving a total amount of Rs.9,44,000/-, allegedly defrauded from various persons.
8) It further appears that the applicant, in connivance with co-accused Paresh Buddhadev and Manjit Chauhan, handed over the details of another Yes Bank Account No. 20100030059233, maintained in the name of Siddhi Enterprises, to accused Dalpat Singh and received a substantial commission in return. A large amount of money obtained through fraudulent transactions was transferred through the said account. In this regard, total of 36 cyber fraud complaints were registered on the NCCRP portal, involving an approx. amount of Rs. 1,08,17,650/-. The applicant is alleged to have been directly involved in these transactions. Furthermore, the applicant is stated to be associated with the suspected accused, Dalpat Singh. It is further submitted that a total of 1123 complaints have been registered on the NCCRP portal through helpline number 1930 in connection with the alleged cyber fraud activities, involving fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 87,31,48,579/-, of which Rs. 6,26,30,579/- constitutes the disputed amount. The applicant in connivance with the other accused, induced various firms and witnesses by offering business opportunities and partnerships and, without their knowledge, obtained access to their bank accounts and used them for carrying out illegal financial transactions. The applicant facilitated the transfer of funds connected with online gaming, cyber fraud, and other fraudulent activities.
9) It further reveals that the applicant contacted co-accused Manjit Chauhan and travelled to Bhilwara, Rajasthan, where he provided the details of the relevant bank accounts, facilitating illegal transactions involving approximately Rs. 2 crore. In return, the applicant and the co-accused allegedly received substantial commissions. The applicant is also alleged to have actively participated in the illegal transfer of funds, withdrawal and transportation of cash, and other related activities. By facilitating these transactions, providing assistance to the co-accused, and acting as an intermediary in the transfer of illicit funds, the applicant allegedly received substantial financial benefits and played an active role in the commission of the alleged offences.
10) The applicant is involved in online gaming activities and the unauthorised transfer, withdrawal, and transportation of funds obtained through cyber fraud and other fraudulent financial transactions. It is alleged that the applicant, through his associates and co-accused, obtained access to the bank accounts of various firms and individuals without their knowledge or consent and used those accounts to facilitate illegal financial transactions.
11) The material on record indicates that the applicant allegedly obtained and utilised bank account details associated with Siddhi Enterprises, a firm belonging to Hasmukhbhai Buddhadev, maintained with Bank of Baroda, Yes Bank, and Bandhan Bank, for carrying out the aforesaid transactions. It is further alleged that the applicant transferred funds through these accounts and facilitated the movement of money obtained from fraudulent activities. The applicant contacted a person named Manjit Chauhan and travelled to Bhilwara, Rajasthan, where he obtained or provided bank account details through which transactions involving approximately Rs. 2 crore were facilitated. In consideration of his role in these transactions, the applicant and the co-accused allegedly received substantial amounts of money as commission. Furthermore, co-accused Ashwin Dave contacted the applicant and provided him with bank account details, which the applicant allegedly used to facilitate the transfer of the aforesaid funds to other persons in return for a commission. Thereafter, co-accused Ashwin Dave allegedly withdrew the funds and handed them over to the applicant, who, in turn, allegedly arranged for the remaining amount to be returned to the principal accused through the Angadiya system. The applicant is further alleged to have received substantial financial benefits for facilitating transactions connected with cyber fraud and online gaming activities. The allegations indicate that the applicant assisted the co-accused by providing bank account details, facilitating the transfer of funds, arranging financial transactions, and forwarding the proceeds to other co-accused. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the applicant played an active role, directly or indirectly, in facilitating the illegal transfer, withdrawal, and transportation of funds obtained through fraudulent activities and online gaming. Threfore, the applicant has participated in the commission of the offences relating to financial fraud.
12) The investigation is still in progress to trace the flow of funds, identify additional bank accounts used in the commission of the offence, and apprehend other absconding accused persons. In view of the ongoing investigation, there is a reasonable apprehension that if the applicant/accused is released on bail at this stage, he may hamper the investigation or interfere with the collection of evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that the application for bail be rejected.
13) This Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to claim parity as a matter of right for two reasons: (i) he is involved in a serious cyber fraud offence and (ii) he has past antecedents of a similar nature. Merely because certain co-accused persons have been released on bail cannot be a ground to enlarge the present applicant on bail. The Court is duty bound to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. In this regard, reference is required to be made on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, and Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 1370. Therefore, the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant are not acceptable. It is also an admitted position that certain co-accused persons are yet to be arrested. Prima facie, the material on record indicates that, in connivance with the co-accused, the applicant was part of a conspiracy whereby funds were systematically routed through multiple bank accounts held by third parties. The amounts so received were transferred through several layers of transactions and ultimately laundered through deeper financial channels. The investigation further suggests that innocent individuals were deceived and the proceeds of crime were subsequently converted into USDT. The modus operandi adopted by the accused involved the use of numerous mule accounts and multiple layers of financial transactions. A large number of complaints have also been registered on the NCCRP Portal. Considering the recent trend of converting fraud proceeds into USDT, tracing the money trail becomes extremely difficult, particularly when such funds are transferred to Gulf countries or other jurisdictions outside India. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the stage of investigation, and the possibility of interference with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
14) Having regard to the transnational nature of the alleged offence and its adverse impact on the financial and economic interests of the country, this Court is of the view that a thorough investigation is required. The allegations disclose a cross-border operation involving the movement of funds through multiple layers and jurisdictions. Such offences are not confined to individual acts of cheating, but have wider economic consequences. The complexity of tracing funds transferred outside the country poses substantial challenges to the investigating agency and warrants a comprehensive and unhindered investigation.
15) 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 applicants are 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 based on attending circumstances and other facts or evidence led by the prosecution.
16) 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.
17) 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.
18) 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. 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.
19) 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.”
20) 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 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.
21) 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.
22) 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:-
“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.”
23) 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:-
“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.”
24) For the foregoing observations and reasons, this Court is of considered view that the applicant is involved in whiter-collar economic offence 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 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.
25) Hence, present bail application is hereby dismissed. The learned trial Court shall expedite the trial on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the learned trial Court in expeditious trial. The Rule is hereby discharged.
