Niraj Widow Of Ranveersinh Mangelal Inda vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Niraj, filed an application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), and 120(B) of the IPC. The applicant is alleged to have prepared forged audit reports and misrepresented tax deposits between 2017 and 2018, prior to the GST regime. The prosecution contends the applicant is heavily involved in the offence. The applicant claims innocence and false implication. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since July 3, 2026. One co-accused has expired during the proceedings. No direct proceedings under the GST Act have been initiated against the applicant.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. The Court considered several factors, including the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant's period of incarceration since July 3, 2026, the absence of any further recovery or discovery, and the fact that the offences are triable by a JMFC court and not punishable with life imprisonment or death. The Court noted that the applicant is a lady advocate, and a co-accused has expired. Crucially, it was observed that no direct proceedings under the GST Act have been initiated against the applicant, and the alleged offence pertains to the period before the GST regime. The case is based on documentary evidence, and the applicant has no past antecedents. The Court found no circumstances pointing to the need for prolonged incarceration, aligning with the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' and the concept of personal liberty under Article 21. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, subject to specific conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the stage of the proceedings? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She contended that nothing further needs to be recovered or discovered from her. She submitted that the offence is triable by a JMFC court, does not carry a life sentence or death penalty, and that the case relies on documentary evidence. She also highlighted that she is a lady advocate, her husband has expired, and no direct GST proceedings have been initiated against her. She emphasized the lack of past antecedents and the prolonged period of incarceration as grounds for bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent-State opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant is significantly involved in the offence and that the gravity of the offence does not warrant granting bail. They requested the dismissal of the application.