Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sameer Modi S/O Bharat Modi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:44624) on 31 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:44624]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13055/2023
Sameer Modi S/o Bharat Modi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Zodiac
Arish 801, Prerna Teerth, Devsar Road, Satellite Ahmadabad,
380015 (Current Address) Sunaharwada, Sirohi Road, Rajasthan
307001 (Permanent Address) (At Present Accused In Central Jail
Jaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, R/o 20/39 Renu Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur Jaipur City (South) Raj. 302020
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Sahjveer Baweja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-Cum AAG with Mr. Aman Agarwal, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 31/10/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.24/2018 registered at Police Station Special Operation Group ('SOG') Rajasthan, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the present case pertains to allegations of large-scale financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds in Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ACCSL'). The present (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44624] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13055/2023] petitioner was allegedly appointed as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)/Additional Managing Director (AMD) of ACCSL.
3. The following acts were attributed to the present petitioner while he was allegedly holding the office of CFO/CMD of ACCSL during the relevant period:
(i) That a sum of Rs. 1,46,82,24,42,239/- was invested by Adarsha Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. in shell companies.
(ii) That Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. paid a commission of Rs. 720 crore to the wife and son-in- law of Shri Mukesh Modi.
(iii) That there was an embezzlement of Rs. 447.55 crore by the Managing Director of Adarsh Credit Co-
operative Society Ltd. and its associated shell companies/firms.
(iv) That an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 270 crore was illegally made to Mukesh Modi, as well as to the son/daughter and son-in-law of Shri Virendra Modi, by Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.
(v) That Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. held stock worth Rs. 225 crore, allegedly acquired through accommodation entries.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions for buttressing his arguments:
(1) that in the present case, complete charge-sheet has not been filed in due time which accrued him a right of default bail and in similar situation, the co-
accused, Kamlesh Chaudhary has been granted bail (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44624] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13055/2023] by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2020.
(2) The petitioner was arrested on 25.05.2009 and has been behind bars for almost six years and still the trial has not concluded, therefore, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, right of speedy trial, the petitioner has the statutory right of bail. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no case made out against the petitioner since he was neither a Director, nor a shareholder and not even a member of the board of ACCSL, who has the power to advance any loans. Thus, the petitioner has no authority or role in operation of ACCSL.
6. It is therefore submitted that considering all these aspects, the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be released on bail.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485;
(2) Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453;
(3) Satendar kumar antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51;
(4) Kamlesh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, S.L.P Crl. 5715/2020;
(5) Achpal v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599; (6) Chitra Ramakrishna v. CBI (2022) SCC OnLine Del 3124; and (7) CBI v. Chitra Ramakrishna (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1168.
(8) Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920;
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44624] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13055/2023] (9) Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269;
(10) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) SCC Online SC 1693;
(11) Jainam Rathod v. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 640/2022;
(12) Girdhar Singh Sodha v. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10687/2021; and (13) Christian James Michael v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. SLP No. 17016/2024.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned GA-Cum AAG have vehemently opposed the bail application and made following submissions:
(i) That a complete charge-sheet has been filed with respect to the present petitioner and trial court has taken cognizance also and when the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, petitioner is not entitled for default bail. They further submit that otherwise also even after filing of the charge-sheet, by virtue of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., pendency of further investigation qua other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing charge-sheet would neither vitiate charge-sheet nor would it entitle to accused to claim right of default bail on the ground that charge-sheet was incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
(ii) They further submit that on account of delay for trial, the petitioner is not entitled for granting relief as the delay has been attributed to the petitioner himself as he himself has taken regular adjournment in the trial Court and in support of this submission, learned Public (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44624] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13055/2023] Prosecutor has filed the order-sheets of the trial Court showing delay on account of the petitioner.
(iii) They further contended that on the ground of merit too, in the capacity of CFO/AMD during the entire tenure of petitioner, a large financial irregularities have been committed by not following the mandatory provisions of law and misappropriated thousands crores of rupees of innocent investors. Besides these 179 cases of similar nature are also pending against the present petitioner.
9. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, they submitted that no indulgence is warranted at this stage and the present bail application is liable to be rejected.
10. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr., 2024 AIR (SC) 905 and;
(ii) Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharakhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758.
11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
12. The material available, prima facie indicates that the offence involves a well-organized economic fraud wherein crores of rupees were collected from innocent investors and diverted through fictitious companies, thereby causing significant loss to the public at large. The nature and magnitude of the offence render it a serious economic offence affecting public confidence.
13. It is also evident from the order sheets that substantial delay in the proceedings has occurred due to adjournments taken on behalf of the petitioner himself. Hence, prolonged custody alone (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44624] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13055/2023] does not automatically justify bail, when the accused himself contributes to the delay.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held that:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs 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."
15. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the huge quantum of public money involved and in the light of arguments advanced by learned G.A and learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out at this stage.
16. In the above circumstances, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner render no assistance to him.
17. Consequently, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
18. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/2 (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:31:23 AM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:50:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)