Gujarat High Court
Jigar Mahendrabhai Pargadu vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 13752 of 2026
==========================================================
JIGAR MAHENDRABHAI PARGADU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/07/2026
ORDER
1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2) 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. 11205043251512 of 2025
registered with “B” Division Police Station, Bhuj, Dist. Kachchh, for
the offences under Sections 61(2), 3(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4),
317(2) and 317(4) of BNS and Sections 66(D) and 77(D) of the I.T. Act.
3) 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. As per the
Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, the applicant is neither the
owner nor the account holder of the bank account through which the
alleged transactions are stated to have been routed. Affidavit of
Investigating Officer does not indicate or disclose any material to
suggest that the applicant has withdrawn any amount from the said
account Thus, the material collected during investigation itself does
not indicate that the applicant was the beneficiary of the alleged
transactions. FIR records that approximately 40 complaints from
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
various parts of the country have been received in relation to alleged
online fraud transactions routed through different bank accounts,
including the account attributed to Shubham Dabhi. The prosecution
has attempted to project that an amount of approximately
Rs.1,05,12,52,826/- has been transacted through various accounts
forming part of the alleged chain of transaction. However, a close
scrutiny of the material reveals that the said figure represents
cumulative transaction entries across multiple layers of banking
channels, and not the actual wrongful gain or direct proceeds
attributable to the present applicant. The applicant is placed at the
7th layer of the alleged transaction chain, which clearly indicates that
he is not a primary beneficiary nor a direct participant in the alleged
inducement or deception of any complaint. Similarly situated co-
accused persons have already been enlarged on regular bail by this
Hon’ble Court. The role attributed to the present applicant is not
distinguishable from that of the co-accused, who have been granted
bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant deserves
to be enlarged on regular bail. Out of the total number of complaints,
the actual dispute amount attributed to the present applicant is only
Rs.8,51,634/-, which is disproportionately small when compared to
the inflated figure by the prosecution. The applicant has no any direct
interaction with the complainant, nor does it attribute any specific act
of Inducement, cheating or misrepresentation to him. The entire case
of prosecution is based upon banking record, digital transactions and
documentary evidence, all of which have already been collected and
are in possession of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, the
applicant may kindly be enlarged on regular bail.
4) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has
opposed the present application and prayed for its dismissal,
contending that the applicant is involved in a serious offence which is
not merely against an individual but against the State and society at
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
large. It is submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that
the applicant has played an active role in the entire scam. The
applicant along with the other accused formed a criminal conspiracy,
and as part of the conspiracy, kept various rented shops in different
places in the name of the co-accused to get money for cyber fraud,
and created false accounts in the names of those shops. The accused
and co-accused allegedly opened fake firm accounts, routed cyber
fraud proceeds through them, and transferred the money to other
accounts before withdrawing it. The applicant allegedly received a
commission and facilitated the transfer of Rs. 26,60,000/- obtained
through the fraud to the co-accused’s firms.
5) It was also found that two other offences have been registered
against the applicant. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned
APP has argued that considering the active and significant role
attributed to the applicant in the alleged offence, the present
application does not deserve to be entertained. It is further
contended that mere filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a ground
for grant of bail and that, if released on bail, there is every likelihood
of the applicant tampering with the evidence and influencing
witnesses.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material
placed on record, it appears that the applicant-accused entered into a
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused. As part of the conspiracy, they
rented several shops in the names of the co-accused to receive money
obtained through cyber fraud and created fake firms operating from
those premises. Current accounts were opened in different banks in
the names of these fake firms. The proceeds of cyber fraud were
deposited into these accounts and were later on transferred to the
account of a co-accused’s firm namely ‘Krishna Traders’. The applicant
along with the co-accused actively participated in withdrawing the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
money through cheques. The act of the accused constitutes serious
offences involving cyber fraud and money laundering. The evidence
further shows that the applicant created a fake firm named Ganesh
Traders and opened a current account with HDFC Bank. Through this
account, an amount of Rs.21,82,39,740/- generated from cyber fraud
was received. The applicant actively participated with the co-accused
in withdrawing this money through cheques. The applicant also
obtained an amount of Rs.4,49,36,220/- of cyber fraud in the current
account of Ganesh Traders. The money was then transferred to the
account of the co-accused’s firm – Bhavani Traders, and was
subsequently withdrawn through cheques by the applicant and the
co-accused. The material on record also indicates that the applicant
received money in his personal bank account from the co-accused to
pay the rent for the shops taken on lease. For performing these
activities, he was initially paid a commission of Rs.50,000/- per month.
The applicant thus played an active and significant role in the
commission of these serious offences.
7) During investigation, it also emerges that the address which was used
in opening a firm named Ganesh Traders was never in existence. In
total, the applicant received a sum of Rs. 21,82,39,740/- in the current
account of the HDFC Bank in the name of Ganesh Traders and also
received a sum of Rs.4,49,36,220/- in the current account of Ganesh
Traders maintained with Central Bank and for which the applicant
failed to produce any supporting documents or explanation in this
regard. On examining the record, it appears that the applicant is the
main conspirator. He created fake firms and opened current bank
accounts in different banks to use them as mule accounts. Money was
transferred into the accounts of co-accused persons opened in the
name of Krishna Traders, and the amounts were later withdrawn
through cheques. After withdrawals, the applicant received the money
and also used another fake firm. The applicant regularly paid rent for
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
the premises used as the business addresses of these fake firms, and
the related documents were executed in his name. He also opened
another fake firm Ganesh Traders, through which Rs. 21,82,39,740/-
was transferred, and the co-accused withdrew the money by cheques.
Initially, the applicant rented several shops, opened multiple bank
accounts, and used them as mule accounts in return for commission.
He received Rs.50,000/- per month as commission and also received
money obtained through cyber fraud. According to the investigation,
he directly benefited by Rs. 4,49,36,220/-. In these circumstances, if
the applicant is released on bail, there is a possibility that he may
tamper with the evidence, especially since the investigation is still
ongoing. The applicant also has two previous criminal antecedents.
8) In view of these facts, it clearly emerges that the applicant has played
an active role in the alleged offenceand allegation of abetment and
conspiracy is also there. So far conspiracy is there, hardly direct
evidence would be available and it also may be inferred from the
present circumstances.
9) Considering the societal and larger interest, as well as the nature of
the economic offense, if the applicant is released on bail, it could
adversely affect the investigation with respect to the other accused.
There is also a possibility of tampering with evidence. In conspiracy
cases, the Court must infer the role of the accused based on
attending circumstances and other facts or evidence led by the
prosecution.
10)It is difficult to unearth the large-scale scam, identify the syndicate,
and ascertain the modus operandi if the accused is released on bail.
Granting bail at this stage would amount to giving protection and
leeway to persons involved in unethical and immoral activities. Due to
the acts of the accused persons, the faith of the Government, the
public, and recruitment agencies has been shaken. Public confidence in
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
the system would be undermined. Considering the seriousness and
sensitivity of the matter, release of the accused on bail would send a
wrong message to society and may hamper the investigation as well as
lead to tampering with the evidence, thereby giving undue advantage
to the wrongdoers.
11)In the aforesaid background, serious economic offences are disclosed
and the involvement of the accused is established. Since the offence
is in the nature of a white-collar and socio-economic offence, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused. The offence appears
to have been committed in a well-planned and systematic manner. It
is not merely an offence against an individual, but one affecting
society at large and public welfare. Therefore, a delicate balance is
required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the
accused and the larger societal interest.
12)The applicant is involved in a white-collar economic offence.
Economic offences are generally committed with careful planning
and deliberate design for personal gain, without regard to the
consequences on society. In such offences, the accused persons show
complete disregard for the interest of the community. White-collar
crimes adversely affect the national economy and national interest.
Such offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracy and huge financial
loss, are required to be viewed seriously and examined differently.
This is not a case where the applicants have been arraigned merely on
the basis of statements of co-accused or suspicion; rather sufficient
material has been collected against the applicant during the
investigation.
13) So far the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the
applicant that similarly situated co-accused are enlarged on bail by
this Court and on the ground of parity, applicant may be enlarged on
bail. This Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
entitled to claim parity as a matter of right for two reasons: (i) he is
involved in a serious cyber fraud offence and (ii) he has past
antecedents of a similar nature. Merely because certain co-accused
persons have been released on bail cannot be a ground to enlarge
the present applicant on bail. The Court is duty bound to consider
the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the
accused, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. In this
regard, reference is required to be made on the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement
Directorate, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, and Sagar v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 1370. Therefore, the
submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant are
not acceptable. It is also an admitted position that certain co-
accused persons are yet to be arrested. Prima facie, the material on
record indicates that, in connivance with the co-accused, the
applicant was part of a conspiracy, whereby funds were
systematically routed through multiple bank accounts held by co-
accused. The amounts so received were transferred through several
layers of transactions and ultimately laundered through deeper
financial channels. The investigation further suggests that innocent
individuals were deceived and modus operandi adopted by the
accused involved the use of numerous mule accounts and multiple
layers of financial transactions.
14)Considering the fact that volatile nature of the data, which includes
use of dummy accounts and online transactions done, the interest of
the prosecution is required to be considered. As the offence in
question involves electronic volatile data and financial in nature, this
Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal & Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
has been observed in paragraph 5 as under in paragraph:
“The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed
in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard
for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer
justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the National Economy and National Interest.”
15)So far as the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the
applicant that the applicant be released as the charge sheet has been
filed is concerned, another important aspect that needs to be
considered is that mere filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient
ground to enlarge the accused on bail, as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. The
State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. If the applicants
are released, the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be
ruled out, especially since the co-accused are absconding, and the
volatile nature of the data could affect the integrity of the evidence.
16)Not only that co-accused are also yet to be arrested and investigation
in that regard is still going on. Therefore, if the applicant is released on
bail then the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled as
the evidence in the present case is electronic and volatile in nature and
therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in mind the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad
vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9
SCC 446, wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in
the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the
society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty
of others is jeopardized.
17)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation
Office Vs. Nittin Johari, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 165, has held that as
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
under:
11. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section 212(7) of the
Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6) with respect to grant of bail
is in addition to those already provided in the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is necessary to
advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this
Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences. In this regard, it
is pertinent to refer to the following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy V. Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2013 7 SCC 439:-
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences
having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting
the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.”
This Court has adopted this position in several decisions, including
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money
Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 SCC 1, and State of
Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751. Thus, it is evident that the
above factors must be taken into account while determining whether
bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences.”
18)As submitted by learned APP, other co-accused are still absconder
and out of reach. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh
Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary & Ors, in Leave to
Appeal (Cri.) No.19708/2025 dated 17.02.2026, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:-
“We may note that the value of life and liberty to members of society is
not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to the quality of
their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary
nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies
by conman, who make it their life’s pursuit to exploit and feast upon
the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be
weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders pleas for grant of
bail.”
19)For the foregoing observations and reasons, this Court is of considered
view that the applicant is involved in whiter-collar economic offence
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13752/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
undefined
and possibility to invoke other provisions of law as economic offence is
there, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this
stage. Merely offence is triable by JMFC Court is not a ground to
release on bail as economic offence is required to be visited at
different class as investigation still going on. Hence, present
application does not deserve any consideration. Hence, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:00:53 IST 2026
