YOGESH HIRALAL THAKKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                   CHARGESHEET) NO. 16050 of 2026
==========================================================
                       YOGESH HARILAL THAKKAR
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN BHARDA, ADVOCATE WITH MR. DHRUVIN P BHUPTANI(8295)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SMIT H THAKKAR(12758) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 16/07/2026

                                 ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in
connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11192011260139 of 2026 registered
with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, for the offences under
Sections 316(2), 316(5), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.
Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Nothing is required
to be recovered or discovered. The applicant has nothing to do with the
alleged offence and has not received any amount towards the said
transaction. It is submitted that the applicant acted only as a broker in
relation to the construction scheme and used to receive 3 % brokerage
commission for introducing purchasers. Except for receiving such
brokerage, no other role has been attributed to the applicant. He is


                                 Page 1 of 7
   R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




neither a signatory to any MOU, agreement, nor any other document
relating to the scheme. He has not floated, promoted, or managed the
scheme in any manner. It is further submitted that, except for an amount
of Rs. 3,50,000/-, which was transferred to the applicant's bank account
through Google Pay by one customer, no other amount has been
credited to his account. No money trail has been found linking the
applicant to the funds allegedly collected from the investors, except for
the aforesaid transaction. However, the applicant is ready and willing to
deposit the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and for that wife of the
applicant has filed an undertaking before this Court. He therefore
submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be
enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present
application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant, in
connivance with the co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy and
floated a scheme with the intention of inducing innocent persons to
invest their money in the said scheme. It is further alleged that, instead
of completing the project, the accused discontinued the scheme and
lured the investors by assuring them if they did not want to continue
with the booking of flats, they would receive a refund of the principal
amount along with good returns. The scheme consists total 117
residential units, and that the accused persons collected a total amount
of Rs. 18,07,59,003/- from innocent investors. In all, it is alleged that the
accused, including the present applicant, lured 46 persons to invest in the
said scheme. Further, the applicant is having past antecedent and if he is
released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant will
flee from justice. Therefore, present application does not deserve
consideration.




                                  Page 2 of 7
   R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




[5.0] While granting bail, 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 interest of
the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to
be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following
aspects have been considered:

      (1)     Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
      (2)     Applicant is behind the bar since 17.12.2025;
      (3)     There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the
              applicant;
      (4)     Offence is triable by JMFC Court;
      (5)     Though the applicant is having one past antecedent, he is
              presumed to be innocent till proven guilty;.
      (6)     Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take
              its own time.
       (7)    As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons
              allegedly formed a group under the name "Keshav Narayan"
              and floated a scheme known as "Akshar Anant" on Survey



                                   Page 3 of 7
R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




           No. 468, Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 3, Final Plot No.
           144. The said project consisted of 4 residential blocks, each
           comprising 14 floors, along with commercial shops. It is
           alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.27,09,000/-
           towards the booking of Flat No. D-803 in the said scheme,
           and the said amount was transferred to the account of
           Keshav Narayan FinCorp. Since the project was neither
           registered   under      RERA        nor   any   construction          had
           commenced, MOU came to be executed, wherein it was
           agreed that if the complainant did not wish to continue with
           the scheme and purchase the flat, the accused would refund
           the principal amount along with interest, aggregating to
           Rs.40,63,500/-. It is further alleged that the accused persons
           collected a total amount of Rs. 12,40,59,000/- from 46
           customers and thereafter discontinued the scheme and
           transferred the property to the co-accused. In these
           circumstances, the present FIR came to be registered.

    (8)    So far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, the
           prosecution alleges that the applicant acted as a broker by
           explaining the scheme to purchasers and made people
           investment therein. For such act, the applicant received a
           commission of 3%. It is further alleged that one witness,
           Naresh Kashinath Maturkar, booked one flat through the
           applicant and transferred an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the
           applicant's bank account. However, to show his bona fide,
           the applicant is ready and willing to refund the said amount.
           Undertaking filed by the wife of the applicant is ordered to
           be taken on record.




                                 Page 4 of 7
    R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




        (9)     Except for the aforesaid allegation, no other role has been
                attributed to the applicant. The applicant had no direct
                involvement in floating the scheme, was not involved in the
                execution of any MOU with any of the victims, and is not a
                signatory to any agreement or document pertaining to the
                scheme. Considering the limited role attributed to the
                applicant, present application deserves consideration.


[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the
case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the
conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars
is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering
the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail
is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves
consideration.

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without
discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion
that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant
on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant
is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being
C.R. No. 11192011260139 of 2026 registered with Bopal Police
Station, Ahmedabad Rural on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that
he/she shall;


                                    Page 5 of 7
    R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




   (a)      not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
   (b)      not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution
            & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall
            not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be
            collected by the police;
   (c)      surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
   (d)      not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
            Trial Court concerned;
   (e)      mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in
            every month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and
            2.00 p.m.;
   (f)      furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his
            residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at
            the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the
            residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial
            Court;
   (g)      not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial
            Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.
  (h)       The applicant shall deposit Rs.3,50,000/- before the learned
            Sessions Court concerned within two weeks from the date
            of his actual release from the jail and shall also file an
            undertaking to that effect at the time of release from jail.

[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in
connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

[10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having
jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to
delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance
with law.


                                       Page 6 of 7
          R/CR.MA/16050/2026                                                       ORDER DATED: 16/07/2026




    [11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
    observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made
    by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

    [12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
    permitted.




                                                                            (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)


    SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 10:49:04




                                                      Page 7 of 7