Rampratap Dhanraj Bhargav vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.M.K.Vohra appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B.Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.H.J.Karathiya appearing on behalf of the first informant.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191028250584/2025 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 318(2) and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Learned advocate Mr.Vohra on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the allegations levelled in the FIR is with raged to the complainant having been cheated and the accused having extorted large sums of money from the complainant, yet, on perusing the FIR, it would be clear that it was the complainant herself who had first approached the present applicant. Learned advocate would submit that as such, perusing the FIR, it also becomes clear that of a total amount of around Rs.14,00,000/- which is alleged to be paid to both the accused, only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid through banking channels and whereas, the rest of the money is stated to have been paid through Angadiya. Learned advocate would submit that as such, prima facie there is no material to show that the present applicant had in any way induced the complainant to come to the applicant, rather it was a voluntary act on the part of the complainant and whereas, under such circumstances, it is requested that the applicant may be released on regular bail.

As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Dabhi appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail. Learned APP would submit that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence of extortion and is also propagating the black magic. Learned APP would submit that since the investigation is not over, this Court may not release the present applicant on regular bail.

Learned advocate Mr.Karathiya appearing on behalf of the complainant has also vehemently objected the present application. Learned advocate would submit that the present applicant and the other accused had induced the complainant to part with a large sums of money. Learned advocate would submit that the complainant, at the relevant point of time, was going through a bad phase in life and whereas, unfortunately, having come in the clutches of the present applicant and other accused, the complainant was required to pay a total of Rs.14,18,100/- to both the accused. Learned advocate would further submit that as such, the applicant is alleged to be involved in two other offences albeit, both the complaints have been settled. Learned advocate would further submit that the offence alleged is serious in nature and whereas, under such circumstances, this Court may not grant the regular bail to the present applicant.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The fact of the applicant herself having approached the present applicant.

ii. The fact of transaction of Rs.10,000/- being made through banking channels and whereas, the remaining amount alleged to have been paid is through Angadiya / courier service.

iii. The inducement etc. is upon the complainant herself having approached the applicant and later the accused no.2.

iv. There being no prima facie material to show that the applicant had committed any offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifices and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2024.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, 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 bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11191028250584/2025 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, on executing a 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 shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;

[f] mark presence once a week till the charge-sheet is filed and once a month for a period of six months after the charge-sheet is filed before the concerned police station.

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 Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

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.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.