Holding

The court dismissed the successive bail application, holding that the applicant’s alleged role and the seriousness of the cyber fraud preclude the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat considered a successive regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Hemant Dayaram Barkade, the secretary of an NGO, after a charge‑sheet was filed for alleged cyber fraud under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the IT Act. The prosecution alleged that the NGO’s bank account was used to route ₹9.75 lakhs of fraudulent proceeds and that the applicant received commission, with 21 related complaints registered on the NCRP portal. The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co‑accused already on bail and argued that he had reported the unauthorized transaction to the bank. The Court examined the seriousness of the economic offence, the applicant’s alleged active role, the risk of evidence tampering, and the fact that several co‑accused remained at large. Relying on established bail principles and precedents, the Court found prima facie involvement and deemed the applicant’s role more serious than that of the co‑accused on bail, concluding that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate test for granting successive bail under Section 483 BNSS after a charge‑sheet has been filed?
Does the principle of parity with a co‑accused already on bail apply to the applicant?
Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in the cyber fraud and the risk of tampering with evidence justify denial of bail?

Legislation cited

Subjects

successive bailcyber fraudeconomic offenceSection 483 BNSScharge-sheetparity principleelectronic evidenceNGOcommissionwhite‑collar crime

Judgment

R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 14951 of 2026
==========================================================
HEMANT DAYARAM BARKADE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIRENKUMAR M NIYALCHANDANI(9959) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 03/08/2026

ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the
respondent-State.

2. The present successive bail application is filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR C.R.
No.11208057260009 of 2026 registered with Cyber Crime Police
Station, Rajkot City for offence punishable under Sections 318(4)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and
Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
charge-sheet has already been filed and that the present
application is a successive bail application filed after filing of the
charge-sheet. It is submitted that the present applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and is associated with an NGO namely, “Koyan
The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti”, wherein he is serving as one of
the office bearers. The applicant is operating the current account

Page 1 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

of the said NGO jointly with other office bearers with the Central
Bank of India. It is submitted that the present applicant has no
connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. The allegation
against the applicant is that the bank account of the said NGO
was used for carrying out cyber fraud. It is submitted that, as
per the case of the prosecution, an amount of ₹9.75 lakhs was
diverted from the account of the complainant's firm, namely
Radhika Steel Firm, to the account of the said NGO and that the
present applicant had received some amount by way of
commission/kickback from the said transaction. Learned
advocate for the applicant further submitted that, upon coming
to know about the alleged unauthorized transaction, the
applicant immediately approached the concerned bank officer
and informed him about the unauthorized transaction and the
alleged fraud committed through the bank account of the NGO.
It is submitted that though the applicant is alleged to have
received some commission, the said bank account does not
belong exclusively to the applicant and was being operated
jointly with other office bearers of the NGO. It is further
submitted that the co-accused, who is similarly situated, has
already been released on bail and, therefore, the applicant may
also be extended the benefit of parity. Considering the fact that
the charge-sheet has already been filed, the role attributed to the
applicant, and the principle of parity, learned advocate for the
applicant requested that the present application may be allowed
and the applicant may be enlarged on bail..

4. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the present
application and submitted that the present applicant is named

Page 2 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

in the FIR and is prima facie found to be actively involved in the
alleged cyber fraud. It is submitted that the applicant, being the
Secretary of the NGO, namely Koyan The Vision Samaj Sewa
Samiti, facilitated the use of the bank account maintained in the
name of the NGO for carrying out large-scale cyber fraud.
Learned APP submitted that, in connection with the said bank
account, as many as 21 complaints have been received on the
NCRP portal. During the course of investigation, it was revealed
that the co-accused was managing the bank account maintained
in the name of “Koyan The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti” and had
permitted the said account to be used for unlawful activities. It is
further submitted that, from the transactions carried out
through the said account, an amount of approximately ₹9.75
lakhs was transferred to the account of the present applicant.
Learned APP further submitted that several other co-accused are
yet to be arrested and that they are directly involved in the
alleged cyber fraud activities. If the present applicant is released
on bail, there is a possibility that he may flee from justice,
particularly as he is a resident of Madhya Pradesh. There is also
a possibility of tampering with the evidence and influencing the
investigation, particularly when 12 accused persons are yet to be
arrested. It is further submitted that a large-scale conspiracy
has been hatched and an organized cybercrime operation has
been carried out, wherein the present applicant has actively
participated. Learned APP submitted that the co-accused who
has been released on bail was attributed a limited role and had
allegedly received only ₹1.50 lakhs by way of commission,
whereas, in the account connected with the present applicant,
transactions involving alleged cyber fraud of approximately

Page 3 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

₹87.20 lakhs have been noticed. It is further submitted that,
during the course of investigation, the amount involved in the
alleged cyber fraud may further increase. Learned APP therefore
submitted that, considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, the large-scale cyber fraud involved, the role attributed
to the present applicant, the number of complaints registered on
the NCRP portal, and the fact that several accused persons are
yet to be arrested, the investigation is still at a crucial stage. It
is, therefore, urged that no case is made out for extending the
benefit of bail to the present applicant and the application may
be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the investigation papers.

6. While deciding bail application, the Court has to consider
the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for
bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii)
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at
the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger

Page 4 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations are required to be considered.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
having gone through the record, it appears that it is alleged that
the present applicant, along with the co-accused, added the
complainant to a WhatsApp group namely, “A13 Stock Sharing
Group”, by impersonating themselves as employees of Franklin
Templeton Group and assuring the complainant of high returns
from stock market trading. It is further alleged that the accused
persons induced the complainant to download an application
namely, “SENDS INV” and, pursuant thereto, the complainant
transferred an amount of ₹87.20 lakhs into different bank
accounts. However, neither was the said amount returned nor
did the complainant derive any benefit from the alleged
investment, and thereby, the accused persons committed the
offence of cheating against the complainant. In this regard, the
complaint came to be registered.

8. During the course of investigation, it was found that the
present applicant was associated with an NGO namely, Koyan
The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti, which maintained a bank
account with the Central Bank of India. It was further found that
the said bank account was used for unlawful activities and for
transferring the amount involved in the alleged cyber fraud. An
amount of ₹9.75 lakhs transferred by the complainant was
credited into the said account, thereby conferring direct financial
benefit upon the present applicant and facilitating the activities
of the co-accused, who are stated to be absconding.

Page 5 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

9. Further, during the course of investigation, it was revealed
from the NCRP portal that 21 complaints pertaining to cyber
fraud had been registered in connection with the said account
from different parts of the country. It was also revealed that the
present applicant had received commission from the proceeds of
the alleged cybercrime. Thus, prima facie, the involvement of the
present applicant in the alleged offence is found.

Merely because the charge-sheet has been filed, it cannot be said
that the present applicant has no connection with the alleged
offence, particularly when the material collected during the
course of investigation prima facie indicates his involvement. The
nature and gravity of the alleged offence, involving cyber fraud
and a white-collar/socio-economic offence, as well as its impact
on society, cannot be overlooked while considering the present
application.

10. So far as the complaint dated 21.01.2026 is concerned, it
appears that the same was filed in connection with the
transaction dated 25.11.2025. Considering the increasing
instances of cyber fraud, the Reserve Bank of India has issued
directions to financial institutions and banks to remain vigilant
and to report suspicious transactions in accordance with the
applicable guidelines. In view of the same, the possibility cannot
be ruled out that the present applicant, having knowledge of
such practices and procedures, might have approached the
concerned Branch Manager and submitted an application as a
precautionary measure, with a view to creating a defence in the

Page 6 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

event of any inquiry into the transactions. However, no formal
complaint in respect of the alleged unauthorized transaction was
registered by the present applicant. Further, on perusal of the
investigation papers, there is nothing to indicate that the present
applicant was not involved in the alleged cyber fraud or that he
had no connection with the amount involved in the alleged
offence. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned
advocate for the applicant that the applicant had already
informed the bank about the alleged unauthorized transaction
does not inspire confidence and cannot come to the aid of the
present applicant.

11. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant seeking
parity with the co-accused also does not deserve acceptance.
Though the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, the role
attributed to the said co-accused is materially different from that
of the present applicant. The co-accused was attributed a limited
role in the alleged cyber fraud, whereas, from the material
collected during the course of investigation, the present
applicant is found to be directly connected with the bank
account of Koyan The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti, which was
allegedly used for routing the proceeds of the cyber fraud. An
amount of ₹9.75 lakhs was credited into the said account and
the present applicant is also alleged to have received commission
from the proceeds of the alleged cybercrime. Further, as per the
investigation, 21 complaints pertaining to cyber fraud have been
noticed on the NCRP portal in connection with the said account.
Thus, the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct and
more serious than that of the co-accused who has been enlarged

Page 7 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

on bail. Therefore, the present applicant cannot claim the benefit
of parity merely on the ground that the co-accused has been
released on bail. Consequently, the principle of parity is not
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In
this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Kumar v.
Enforcement Directorate, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1486, and Sagar v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025
INSC 1370.

12. Since several co-accused are yet to be apprehended and
their custodial interrogation is required for a proper investigation
into the alleged cyber fraud, the possibility of the present
applicant influencing the investigation, if released on bail,
cannot be ruled out. Further, the offence involves electronic and
volatile data, including online transactions, use of bank
accounts for routing the alleged fraud amount, and other digital
evidence, which requires proper preservation and investigation.
Considering the financial nature and seriousness of the offence,
the interest of the prosecution is also required to be kept in view.
In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Others, reported in
(1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it has been observed in paragraph 5
as under:

“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

Page 8 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

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.”

13. 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 and Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya
Sarda reported in 2025 INSC 477. 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.

14. In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is
that the bank account of Koyan The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti
was used for routing the proceeds of the alleged cyber fraud,
wherein an amount of ₹9.75 lakhs was credited into the said
account and the applicant is alleged to have received commission
therefrom. Further, 21 complaints pertaining to cyber fraud have
been noticed on the NCRP portal in connection with the said
account and several co-accused are yet to be apprehended.
Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, the possibility of

Page 9 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

tampering with the electronic evidence or influencing the
investigation cannot be ruled out. In this regard, reference may be
made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ash
Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another,
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446.

15. 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."

Page 10 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

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.”

16. 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.”

17. Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy
reported in (2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed in paragraph 34 as under:

“34. 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

Page 11 of 12
R/CR.MA/14951/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2026

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of
granting bail, the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the Court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

18. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the
specific role attributed to the present applicant, the substantial
amount involved in the alleged cyber fraud, the applicant’s
alleged receipt of commission from the proceeds of the crime, the
use of the NGO’s bank account for routing the alleged fraud
amount, and the fact that several co-accused are yet to be
apprehended, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
case is made out for exercising discretion in favour of the
applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present application fails and is
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.

19. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are tentative in nature.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/08/2026 17:34:25

Page 12 of 12