NARESH JAYANTILAL JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/1516/2026                          ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
                   BAIL) NO. 1516 of 2026
                           With
        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1533 of 2026

================================================
                   NARESH JAYANTILAL JAIN
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR IH SYED, SR ADVOCATE with MR. AMAAN SYED(14385)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                          Date : 18/03/2026

                           ORAL ORDER


1.      Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.


2.      By these applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicant
has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection
with the FIR being C.R. Nos. 11210060232281 & 11210060232802 of
2023, registered with Varachha Police Station, District: Surat for
the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the

                               Page 1 of 6
      R/CR.MA/1516/2026                           ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


3.      Learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit that
the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime inasmuch as he was
working with the main accused i.e. the original accused No. 1 and
is not direct beneficiary in the so-called transactions and no benefit
has been derived by the present applicant. He would submit that
even no any Section 138 of NI Act proceeding are filed against the
present applicant which substantiates the fact that the applicant
has no direct nexus in the offence in question.


3.1     The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit
that the main accused i.e. the original accused No. 1 is released on
regular bail. Further, he submitted that the present applicant came
to be arraigned in three offences with similar allegations, out of
which, in two offences the learned Sessions Court has granted
anticipatory bail to the present applicant vide orders dated
07.01.2026.


3.2     The learned senior advocate for the applicant submits that
even otherwise the nature of allegations are such that custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted
that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.


3.3     The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the


                                Page 2 of 6
      R/CR.MA/1516/2026                         ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is
urged that these applications may be allowed and to grant the
anticipatory bail to the applicant.


4.      As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence
and requested not to entertain these applications.


4.1     The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the present applicant is shown as accused No. 2 in the FIRs and
that, the applicant is none other than the cousin brother of the
main accused i.e. the original accused No. 1 – Meet Sureshkumar
Jain. He submitted that there are number of persons whose money
has been duped by the present applicant in connivance with the
main accused. It is submitted that after the year 2023, not a single
penny has been paid by the applicant. Accordingly, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, as the custodial interrogation is
necessary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that these applications may not be entertained.


5.      Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid


                               Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.MA/1516/2026                              ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits
of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be
avoided.        However, following aspects have been taken into
consideration:


       a)    the role attributed to the present applicant to facilitate
       the alleged transactions and remained present with the
       original accused No. 1;

       b)       the original accused No. 1 is released on regular bail;

       c)    the learned Sessions Court has considered anticipatory
       bail applications in two other offences with similar
       allegations;

       d)    the learned advocate for the applicant has assured that
       the applicant will not flee from justice and would be
       available during investigation as well as the trial.


6.     Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa

                                   Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.MA/1516/2026                           ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the
decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court is inclined to allow the present
applications.


7.     In the result, these applications are allowed by directing that
in the event of arrest/ appearance of the applicant in connection
with the above-referred FIRs, the applicant shall be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with one surety of like amount, in each case, on the
following conditions that applicant:


       (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
       available for interrogation whenever required;

       (b) shall 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 to any police officer;

       (c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
       and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to
       be collected by the police;

       (d) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
       02.04.2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the
       Investigating Officer shall ensure that no unnecessary
       harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;



                               Page 5 of 6
         R/CR.MA/1516/2026                                                             ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




             (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
             address to the investigating officer and the court concerned
             and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the
             case till further orders;

             (f)    shall not leave India without the permission of the
             Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before
             the trial Court within a week;

             (g) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
             move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section
             483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in the event of
             violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating
             during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to
             witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the
             investigation or trial, etc.


  7.1        At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
  prima facie observations made by this Court while considering the
  bail applications.


  8.         It is made clear that this order of anticipatory bail does not in
  any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
  investigative agency to investigate into the charges against the
  applicant who is granted pre-arrest bail.


  9.         Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service
  is permitted.


                                                                                             [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
  hiren/DB/1/6&7tss18326




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/03/2026 14:24:41

                                                        Page 6 of 6