Gujarat High Court
Krushnadevsinh @ Lalu Ranjitsinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4279
of 2026
==========================================================
KRUSHNADEVSINH @ LALU RANJITSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PIYUSH M VALA(14238) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.ALBIN KURIAN(17196) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
CHINTAN DAVE APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 23/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR bearing No. 11213064250875, lodged at Upleta Police Station, Rajkot Rural, dated 12.12.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 411, 420, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, 2000.
2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that:-
2.1 The present applicant is innocent and wrongly roped in the present offence without any credible material. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
The present applicant is in no way directly or indirectly connected with the commission of the alleged offences.
2.2 That the FIR has been registered after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about one year and 8 months from the alleged date of occurrence, despite the fact that the entire alleged crime was reported on the NCRP Portal prior to Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined registration of the FIR, which delay strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the allegations inherently doubtful and an afterthought.
2.3 That the registration of the FIR is only to show departmental actions under the pretext of hunting mule accounts, and there are no credible evidence or allegations with regard to the exact amount of alleged crime being committed by the applicant.
2.4 That merely because the co-accused stated the name of the applicant, the applicant was wrongly roped into the alleged offence. There is no independent evidence against the present applicant, and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the co-accused, which cannot be relied upon, coupled with the fact that no custodial interrogation is either warranted or necessary.
2.5 That the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, served upon the present applicant on 02.02.2026, which was also served on the sister of the applicant, and the mandate as provided under the law has not been followed, namely the service of notice within 14 days from the registration of the FIR. It appears from the conduct of the investigating agency that the presence of the present applicant is not required for investigation.
2.6 That the essential ingredients of Section 411 of the IPC are not prima facie attracted against the present applicant, as per the section, 'stolen property' includes only that which is Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined obtained by theft, robbery, dacoity, or extortion. Property which has been obtained by forgery or cheating would not fall within the meaning of 'stolen property' as defined in the said section. Thus, the entire FIR is lodged without proper application of mind and proper appreciation of the law, and the said FIR is registered in a hurry to reflect contribution towards hunting of mule accounts.
2.7 That no role is attributed to the present applicant to attract Section 420 of the IPC, since, from the statement of the co-accused, no allegations with regard to cheating or inducing or cybercrime are surfacing on record.
2.8 That the essential ingredients of Section 66(c) and 66(D) of the IT Act are also not attracted, as the present applicant has not stolen any identity which would have been used in the alleged crime, nor is any cheating by impersonation using computer resources alleged; and hence, Sections 66(C) and 66(D) are not attracted in the facts of the case.
2.9 That the aforesaid sections are falsely alleged against the present Applicant so as to prevent expiry of limitation under Section 514 of BNSS.
2.10 Learned advocate for the applicant relied on the judgments in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, and has argued that the offences alleged to have been committed are punishable with Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined imprisonment of seven years or less, and thus, the investigating agency is bound to follow the ratio laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra), and therefore, argued to allow the present application.
3. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the Respondent State would submit that:-
3.1 From the investigation carried out till date, it transpires that a sum of Rs. 20 lakh is reflecting in the bank account of the present applicant, for which six complaints are already registered on the portal of the Central Government, namely Samanvaya and the NCRP, from various states.
3.2 Learned APP would submit that the co-accused Alpeshbhai Suva's name and account have been utilized in siphoning of the crime money, for which he has received a commission of Rs. 35,000/- from the present applicant, and Rs. 20 lakh have been credited in the bank account of Alpeshbhai, alleged to have been opened at the instance of the present applicant, and his ATM card, cheque book, passbook, etc., are also with the present applicant and are operated under the name and pretext of Alpeshbhai.
3.3 That custodial interrogation is required, since the present crime involves layers of transactions which would not be surfacing unless custodial interrogation is conducted, and if anticipatory bail is granted, the applicant would not cooperate with the investigation and to reach the roots of the case and unfold the modus operandi would not be possible.Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 3.4 That the Investigating agency has approached the present applicant on 14.12.2025; however, he was not present at his residence, and the notice was finally served on his sister on 02.02.2026. Thus, it cannot be said that the investigating agency has not followed the law and has filed the chargesheet on 03.01.2026, reflecting the name of the present applicant in column no. 2 and shown as an absconder.
3.5 That as far as the attraction of Section 411 and 420 of the IPC and Section 66(C) and (D) of the IT Act is concerned, merely because the chargesheet states that the applicant has committed an offence under Section 411, 420, and 34 of the IPC and Section 66(C) and (D) of the IT Act, it cannot be said that wrong sections are applied at this stage, when the applicant himself is not cooperating with the investigation and not available. The same can be altered at any stage, even before the judgment is pronounced, and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the present applicant. What is to be seen by the court is whether a prima facie case exists against the present applicant. This is not the stage to enter into the merits as to which sections are attracted and which are not, and thus, it is argued to reject the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. This Court has gone through the chargesheet papers placed before this Court by the investigating agency through learned APP, and this Court has also taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the investigating officer opposing the anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined 4.1 Prima facie, it appears that the applicant has used the account of the co-accused and has transferred a sum of Rs. 20 lakh, which has been transacted in the Bank of India standing in the name of Alpesh (co-accused), for which he has received a commission of Rs. 35,000/- from the present applicant. He is already facing complaints on the portals of Samanvaya and NCRP of the Government of India from six different complaints received online with regards to online forgery from different states.
4.2 Whether Section 411, 420, and 34 of the IPC and Section 66(C) and (D) of the IT Act are attracted or not is a matter of evidence; it cannot be decided at this stage, and hence, the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant is rejected at the threshold.
4.3 As far as following the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arneshkumar (Supra), it is required to be noted that when the police inquired with regards to the applicant on 14.12.2025, i.e., after lodging the FIR on 12.12.2025, the applicant was not present, and the statement of his sister was also recorded. It is only after the filing of the chargesheet on 03.01.2026 (which came to be registered on 04.02.2026) that the notice was issued again under Section 35(3) on 02.02.2026 to the applicant. Even prior to this, he had already approached the Sessions Court on 31.01.2026, and the said anticipatory bail application preferred before the Sessions Court came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 09.02.2026 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined Rajkot at Dhoraji in Criminal Misc. Application No. 39/2026.
4.4 As far as the argument regarding Arneshkumar (Supra) is concerned, it is not applicable and does not hold good in view of the fact that the applicant was not present on 14.12.2025 and had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 31.01.2026, even prior to sending the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. It cannot be said that the investigating agency has not followed the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated in the judgment of Arneshkumar (Supra).
4.5 Power under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences committed online. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain, [Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105; 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
4.6 The law aids only the abiding and certainly not perpetrators. In the case on hand when after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court the accused is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If the accused is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
4.7 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4279/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026 undefined the alleged offence involves economic offences which are serious in nature committed through the internet, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required to go to the root of the layers of the transaction. A systematic modus operandi has been adopted to siphon the money into mule accounts by luring the co-accused. Under the circumstances, when the present applicant is prima facie involved in serious economic offences, wherein the common public has been duped under one or the other pretext, more particularly when six applications from different states lodged their complaints on the Samanvaya and NCRP portals against the bank account of Alpesh, co-accused alleged to have been used by the present applicant, no case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Captioned Application is rejected accordingly.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 23:23:47 IST 2026