Gujarat HC refuses bail in cyber fraud run through 142 bank accounts; economic offence, no parity with employee co-accused

Summary

The Gujarat High Court has refused successive regular bail after chargesheet to a man accused of running a large cyber fraud through 142 bank accounts and 14 fictitious firms, holding that it was a serious economic offence and that he could not claim parity with a co-accused who acted at his behest. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta on bail in offences of a pecuniary nature, but directed the trial court to expedite the trial and provide legal aid if needed.

The applicant, Kalpeshbhai Rajeshbhai Chunilal Jinjuwadia Soni, sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in C.R. No. 11191011260172 of 2026 of DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 317(2), 318(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He has been in custody since 18 June 2026. The investigation is over, the chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution has cited 187 witnesses. He argued that his role was limited to that of a broker and employee who opened bank accounts for a salary of Rs 30,000 a month, that nothing remained to be recovered, and that parity applied with co-accused Pankaj.

What each side argued

The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that investigation was over and the chargesheet filed, that the offence was triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of three to seven years, that the trial with 187 witnesses would take time, and that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

The State argued that the applicant and co-accused systematically committed cyber fraud, that the fraud noticed was Rs 415,11,61,413, with a panel of Chartered Accountants appointed and investigation continuing, that cheque books, passbooks, ATM cards, SIM cards and unaccounted cash were recovered from him, that other co-accused were absconding, and that Pankaj was only his employee.

The court's decision

The Court found that the applicant was named in the FIR and, with the co-accused, had opened 142 bank accounts and registered 14 fictitious firms, through which Rs 415,11,61,413 of fraud transactions were made between May 2014 and June 2026. It held the offence was a white-collar and socio-economic offence affecting society at large, quoting State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, and that the electronic and volatile nature of the evidence and the absconding co-accused made tampering a real risk.

It rejected the arguments one by one. Mere filing of the chargesheet is not a ground for bail, relying on Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406. Parity with Pankaj failed because he acted at the behest of the applicant, who was higher in the chain, citing Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement and Sagar v. State of U.P. Non-arrest of co-accused is not a ground for bail, citing CBI v. Vijay Sai Reddy, and an offence punishable up to seven years is not by itself a ground, citing Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh. The Court also relied on Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165 and on Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta (Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19708/2025, 17 February 2026).

The application was dismissed and the Rule discharged. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial, since the applicant is an under-trial prisoner, and if he fails to engage an advocate to provide legal aid under Section 341 BNSS, in view of Ummed Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 931). The Court clarified that its observations are tentative and the trial court shall decide independently on merits.

Precedents referred to

Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta

State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364

Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452

Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446

Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement

Ummed Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 931

Provisions referred to

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 483 and 341)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 317(2), 318(3) and 61(2))

Official source: High Court of Gujarat. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Anticipatory Bail

Telangana HC: anticipatory bail refused to accused who allegedly struck victim's head with iron rod, granted to two co-accused

The question: Should anticipatory bail be granted to all three accused in an assault arising from a land dispute?

The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition for anticipatory bail in a land-dispute assault case, refusing it to the accused who allegedly struck the victim on the head with an iron rod and granting it to two co-accused whose custody was not shown to be necessary. Justice N. Tukaramji held that an anticipatory bail petition is not a mini-trial and that parity cannot be applied mechanically merely because the accused are implicated in the same occurrence. The petitioners, Arikala Kumar and two others, are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 204 of 2026 of Havelighanpur Police Station, Medak District, for offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS. According to the prosecution, on 28 August 2026 at about 8 PM, against the backdrop of a land dispute, they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant's father on his motorcycle and abused him. Accused No. 1 allegedly hit him on the head with an iron rod and accused No. 2 beat him with a stick, causing bleeding injuries. When the mother intervened, accused No. 1 allegedly hit her with the same rod and accused No. 2 also beat her.

Partly allowed CRLP/14306/2026

Delhi High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Bail

Delhi HC grants bail in MCOCA drug-syndicate case on parity with sister freed by Supreme Court; Section 21(4) MCOCA met

The question: Is the appellant entitled to bail on parity with her co-accused sister, whom the Supreme Court released in the same prosecution?

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Deepa Singh, accused of being part of an organised drug syndicate, holding that after the Supreme Court released her co-accused sister Anuradha in the same case, nothing in the material placed her on a qualitatively graver footing. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that, on broad probabilities, there were reasonable grounds for believing she was not guilty of the MCOCA offences alleged, which satisfied the first limb of Section 21(4) MCOCA, and that the second limb was also met. The appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 against an order of 3 September 2026 of the Special Exclusive Court-13 (MCOCA), Rouse Avenue Courts, rejecting her regular bail. FIR No. 186/2025 of P.S. Sultanpuri followed a raid on 10 March 2025 in which 385.53 grams, gross weight, of heroin and 47.09 grams of Tramadol were recovered. The prosecution invoked MCOCA against an alleged family-run syndicate headed by the appellant's mother, Kusum. The appellant and her sister Anuradha @ Chiku surrendered on 12 September 2025. Anuradha's bail appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 6 January 2026, but on 24 July 2026 the Supreme Court set that judgment aside and directed her release on bail.

Allowed CRL.A./939/2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Bail

Himachal HC refuses bail in NDPS case: 134 g heroin, five earlier NDPS FIRs; Section 37 not applying is no ground for bail

The question: Is the petitioner entitled to bail because the quantity recovered is below commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply?

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused regular bail to a man found driving a car in which 134 grams of heroin was recovered, holding that he cannot be released merely because the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to a quantity below commercial quantity, and that his five earlier NDPS cases weighed against him. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that six months in custody, without proof that the delay was due to the prosecution or the court, was not excessive, but left it open to the petitioner to return if the trial is not concluded expeditiously. The petitioner, Surender Kumar, sought regular bail in F.I.R. No. 53 of 2026, dated 2 March 2026, of Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, for offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. As per the prosecution, the police stopped a vehicle with registration HP 31-9134 on 2 March 2026, found a black polythene packet containing 134 grams of heroin, and arrested the petitioner, who was driving, and the co-accused Rinku, who was in the front seat. The sample was found by the forensic laboratory to be diacetylmorphine. The police have completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet.

Dismissed CRMPM/1705/2026