Introduction:
The Gujarat High Court recently granted regular bail to a law student accused in an alleged cheating and forgery case involving fictitious firms, fake bank accounts, and the transfer of money allegedly generated through cricket betting. The case, Ankitkumar Ramchandra Padhiyar (Mali) v. State of Gujarat (R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 13468 of 2026), was decided by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar.
The applicant had been booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including offences relating to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, and criminal conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the accused persons had created fictitious business entities, opened bank accounts in their names, and routed money allegedly received from illegal cricket betting through these accounts. The applicant sought regular bail after the filing of the charge sheet, contending that his role was limited and that no financial benefit or money trail connected him to the alleged crime.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicant argued that he was merely working under the instructions of the principal accused, Vipul Patel and Gaurang Darji, who were engaged in loan-related business. It was submitted that his responsibilities were confined to assisting with registration formalities such as obtaining GST registration, Udyam Certificates, and opening bank accounts for firms as directed by his employers. He maintained that he had no control over the business operations or financial transactions carried out by the co-accused.
The defence further submitted that the investigation had not revealed any transfer of illegal funds into the applicant’s personal bank account. No money trail connected him to the alleged proceeds of cricket betting, nor was there any evidence that he had personally benefited from the transactions. Since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed, there was no necessity to keep him in further judicial custody.
The State opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was a law student possessing knowledge of taxation and financial documentation. According to the prosecution, he knowingly assisted the main accused in establishing fictitious firms and creating the necessary documentation to facilitate the laundering of money generated through cricket betting. The prosecution argued that the absence of a money trail in his account did not exonerate him, as it could indicate that the transactions had been carefully structured to conceal his involvement. The State therefore requested the Court to reject the bail application considering the seriousness of the allegations.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the material placed before it, the Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to the applicant. The Court observed that while the applicant was present during certain stages of the alleged activities, the evidence collected during investigation indicated that the primary role in the alleged conspiracy was attributed to the co-accused, Vipul Patel and Gaurang Darji.
The Court noted that the applicant’s involvement appeared to be limited to opening bank accounts, obtaining GST registrations, and completing other allied registration formalities at the directions of the principal accused. Importantly, the investigation did not reveal any money trail linking the applicant to the alleged proceeds of crime, nor was there any material demonstrating that he had personally received or benefited from the funds allegedly generated through cricket betting.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar further observed that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed. Consequently, there was no further recovery or discovery to be made from the applicant. The prosecution also failed to point out any specific circumstance justifying the continuation of his detention pending trial.
The Court reiterated that at the stage of deciding a bail application, it is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or determine the guilt of the accused. Instead, it must assess whether continued custody is necessary for investigation, recovery of evidence, or ensuring a fair trial. Since these considerations were no longer applicable, prolonged incarceration was found to be unwarranted.
Taking into account the applicant’s limited role, the absence of any direct financial trail, completion of investigation, and filing of the charge sheet, the High Court held that he was entitled to be released on regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions imposed by the trial court.
The order highlights an important principle governing bail jurisprudence: while the gravity of allegations is relevant, courts must also evaluate the individual role attributed to each accused. Mere association with the principal offenders, without clear evidence of direct involvement or personal gain, cannot by itself justify indefinite pre-trial detention once the investigation has concluded.