Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nikunjbhai Pravinbhai Bhatt on 24 December, 2018
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
R/CR.MA/21826/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21826 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22059 of 2018
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NIKUNJBHAI PRAVINBHAI BHATT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.J.K.SHAH, APP, (2) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 24/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
1.0 These two applications are filed by the State under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents-accused in connection with C.R.No.I-03 of 2018 registered with C.I.D. Crime Police Station, Surat for offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 365, 384, 387, 343, 323, 504, 170, 506(2), 193, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.
2.0 The aforementioned two applications are filed respectively against and order dated 06.09.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application no.4184 of 2018 by Sessions Judge, Surat and in Criminal Misc. Application No.4080 of 2018 by the Sessions Judge, Surat.
3.0 In view of the fact that the offences are common and respondents are accused of the same C.R. and State being the applicant for cancellation, both these applications are taken up for joint hearing. However, the facts are recorded from Criminal Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/21826/2018 ORDER Misc. Application no.21826 of 2018.
4.0 The FIR came to be recorded against 10 named accused persons and certain unknown persons, wherein respondents are shown as accused No.4 and accused No.6 respectively. The FIR came to be registered by the detective Police Inspector of C.I.D. Crime, Gandhinagar, alleging that all the accused persons had connived with each other abducted the victims for extorting money from the victim and in that process, were able to abduct the victims by taking them to lonely place and with the aid of electronic device managed to transfer money in the form of bit-coins in the accounts of the co-accused including the present respondents.
5.0 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence is of very serious in nature and respondents have played active role in participating in the offence and with the co-accused since beginning of the offence. The co-accused were aware that the victims have stored huge amount of money in the nature of bit-coins and therefore, had abducted them to lonely place and forced them to transfer the bit-coins in the wallet of the co-accused persons. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to refer to the magnitude of the offence as the transaction involved several Crores of rupees which were extorted by the accused persons from the two abducted witnesses. It is submitted that at the time of passing of the order, the State had brought to the notice of the Court that the bail applications of the accused persons were rejected by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court.
6.0 It is submitted that the entire offence is so complicated that the Investigating Agency had to file yet Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/21826/2018 ORDER another FIR, wherein several police personnel themselves were involved in the offence and co-accused Shailesh Bhatt, who is main accused person is not traceable till then. It is submitted that in the account of the applicant, 250 bit-coins were transferred of which 240 bit-coins were transferred by the applicant and only 10 bit-coins were found in the account of the applicant.
7.0 Having considered the submissions of learned APP and having considered the documents placed on record, it is found that the offences is the nature of abduction of two individuals Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani and were detained at a farm house for a period of three days under the fear of gun point and 2256 bit-coins were transferred to the Black-chain wallet of main accused Shailesh Bhatt. Other virtual currency was also transferred in the wallets of co-accused.
8.0 The respondents were apprehended on 20.05.2018 and 31.05.2018 respectively and since then, after the remand period, continued in judicial custody. The investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed. From the charge-sheet, the role of the respondents appears to be in aid of the main accused and receiving in account, part of the bit-coins which were received by commission of offence of abduction and extortion. From the investigation case papers, it appears that the accused are not directly involved in causing abduction of the victim as is observed by the Sessions Court, but allegations are that to watch out one Satish Kumbhani had proceeded to Goa, but ultimately upon being informed that the said Satish Kumbhani was not being in Goa, had returned halfway. Moreover, it is alleged that the applicant had managed to find out one Manan Shah, who is a computer hacker to help in Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/21826/2018 ORDER commission of offence for transferring bit-coins. Beyond that, no other role is emerging on the record.
9.0 The Sessions Court upon considering the investigation case papers has come to the conclusion that the role attributed to the applicant does not travel to the extent of only participated in the abduction and extortion, but had received certain bit-coins in their account which were related to bit- coins transferred through main accused Shailesh Bhatt as a part of his extortion offence. It is in view of these facts, the Sessions Court has exercised discretion in favour of the respondents. This Court has also independently considered the evidence on record against respondents has found that the observation with regards to role of the respondents, the Court has correctly observed the role. Even during the course of arguments, no additional role has been pointed out before this Court. The Court has also considered the fact that the respondents were in custody since May-2018 till the respondents were released on bail in the month of September, 2018, the charge-sheet is already filed. The conditions imposed by the impugned order are sufficient to ensure the presence of the respondents during the course of the trial. The Court has also considered that co-accused Manoj Kyada has also been thereafter, enlarged by the Sessions Court. Over and above, two accused Dilip Kanani was enlarged by this Court by an order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc Application No.18228 of 2018 and another accused Jignesh Moradiya was enlarged on regular bail by an order dated 21.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc Application No.22103 of 2018.
Page 4 of 5R/CR.MA/21826/2018 ORDER 10.0 In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court. The applications therefore, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Siddharth Page 5 of 5