RISHI LUNKARAN VAKHTHARIAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

     R/CR.MA/8711/2026                               ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR TRANSIT BAIL) NO. 8711 of 2026

==========================================================
                     RISHI LUNKARAN VAKHTHARIA & ORS.
                                  Versus
                     CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR DHAVALKUMAR L DESAI(11889) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                              Date : 16/04/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


1.     Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.


2.     Issue Rule, fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
Rule on behalf of Respondent State. Learned Advocate Mr. R.C.
Kodekar waives service of rule for Respondent No. 1.


3.     This application is filed by the applicant seeking grant of
transit bail for six weeks in connection with the Case No. RC-
11(S)/2016-CBI-R registered at CBI, ACB, Ranchi for the
offences punishable under Section 120-B, 415, 420 of IPC and
Section 3 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme
(Banning) Act, 1978.


4.     Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.


5.     The      Applicant   namely      Anita     Wife   of   Arvindkumar
Vakhtaria has placed on record the Additional Affidavit on


                                  Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.MA/8711/2026                          ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




behalf of the Petitioners that all the applicants are residing at
206, Bilipatra Complex, Nr. Shiv Vatika, Harni Warasiya Ring
Road, Vadodara 390006. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition for grant of transit bail.


6.     Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the above
FIR and therefore, the applicant is desirous of moving the
jurisdictional Court seeking anticipatory bail and hence, he
urges that, in the interregnum, applicant may be protected and
transit bail may be granted to the applicant.


7.     Learned Advocate for the Applicant has relied on the
judgment in the case of Priya Indoria vs The State Of
Karnataka (2023 INSC 1008).


8. Learned Advocate Mr. R.C. Kodekar for Respondent No. 1
and Learned APP for the Respondent-State submitted that the
fear of the applicants is not a real apprehension of their arrest,
particularly when the applicants have been given notice under
Section 91 of the CrPC to produce documents in connection
with the FIR mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the present
application is misconceived and has urged to reject the same.


9. The case of the Applicants is that they are directors of M/s
Haldhar Realty and Enterprises Limited and Haldhar Vikas
Credit Co-operative Society, and that an FIR has been lodged
against them in Gujarat in connection with offences punishable
under Section 3 of the GPID as well as other offences under the
IPC. Recently, the applicants were served with a notice issued


                              Page 2 of 5
      R/CR.MA/8711/2026                         ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




by Respondent No. 1 pursuant to a case registered in the year
2016 under Section 91 of the CrPC.


10.     The Applicants apprehend arrest pursuant to the case
mentioned in the said notice. It would not be easy for them to
approach the State of Jharkhand and avail the remedy of bail in
anticipation of arrest; hence, they have prayed for transit bail
before this Court. They have sought transit bail for at least six
weeks to enable them to approach the State of Jharkhand and
avail appropriate remedies. They submit that they have no
direct connection so that they can prefer anticipatory bail at
Jharkhand, and that if they approach for bail in anticipation of
arrest, there is every likelihood that they would be arrested,
thereby frustrating the very purpose of seeking anticipatory
bail.


11.     Thus, they have prayed for the grant of transit bail for six
weeks in connection with Case No. RC-11(S)/2016-CBI-R
registered at CBI, ACB, Ranchi for offences punishable under
Sections 120-B, 415, and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6
of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,
1978, as mentioned in the notice issued by Respondent No. 1.


12.     Considering the ratio laid down in the case of Priya
Indoriya (Supra), more particularly the fact that an FIR has
been registered pursuant to which the applicants have been
issued notice under Section 91 of the CrPC, and also
considering that the applicants have been granted anticipatory
bail for the offence registered before the CID Crime Zone
bearing CR No. 3/2017, wherein one of the conditions is that


                               Page 3 of 5
      R/CR.MA/8711/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




they shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the Court, and all are residing at the address
given in the additional affidavit filed by the Applicants, i.e.,
206, Bilipatra Complex, Nr. Shiv Vatika, Harni Warasiya Ring
Road, Vadodara – 390006.


13.     This     Court    is    competent            to   entertain     the    present
application, particularly since the applicants have received
notice under Section 91 of the CrPC for an offence registered in
the     year      2016,       and    their   apprehension          is    reasonable.
Considering that we are now in the year 2026 and almost 10
years have lapsed since the registration of the FIR, no adverse
impact would be caused to the investigation if the applicants
are protected by way of transit bail.


14.     This Court is satisfied regarding the inability of the
applicants to approach the competent court in the State of
Jharkhand seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest. The
reasonable apprehension based on the notice issued under
Section 91 of the CrPC cannot be brushed aside. This Court
finds the present case to involve exceptional and compelling
circumstances to grant transit bail/interim protection to enable
the Applicants to make an application under Section 438 of the
CrPC before the court of competent jurisdiction; otherwise,
they would face an irreversible situation.


15.     In the        facts    and    circumstances          of the case, this
application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed
in part. It is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested
for a period of 4 weeks in connection with the aforesaid FIR.


                                       Page 4 of 5
                R/CR.MA/8711/2026                                                                     ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026




        The applicant may approach the competent Court with
        territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining anticipatory
        bail in connection with the aforesaid offence. This order shall
        remain in force for four weeks from today.


        16.         It is made clear that if the applicant fails to comply with
        the above condition and does not approach the Court of
        competent jurisdiction, the transit bail granted by this Court
        shall stand automatically cancelled. Rule is made absolute to
        the aforesaid extent.

                                                                                                                 (P. M. RAVAL, J)
        MMP

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/04/2026
18:26:13




                                                                    Page 5 of 5