Gujarat HC Grants Bail to GST Paperwork Employee in Cricket Betting and Money Laundering Case

The Gujarat High Court released an accused whose role was limited to opening bank accounts and registering GST numbers for co-accused persons engaged in cricket betting and fictitious firms.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, on 7 July 2026 granted regular bail to Ankitkumar Ramchandra Padhiyar, an accused in a case involving cricket betting proceeds being laundered through fictitious firms. The court found that Padhiyar's role was confined to administrative tasks — opening bank accounts and securing GST registrations at the instance of his co-accused employers — and that no money trail was traceable to him. With the investigation concluded, the charge-sheet filed, and Padhiyar in custody since 24 March 2026, the court held that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment and allowed the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The FIR and Charges

The case arises from FIR C.R.No.11206043260223 of 2026 registered with Mehsana Police Station, Mehsana. The offences alleged are under Sections 318(4), 336(4), 338, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

According to the prosecution, the accused persons operated under the guise of a legitimate loan facilitation business. They opened fictitious firms, created bank accounts in those firms' names, and used those accounts to transfer amounts generated from gaming and cricket betting. The main architects of the scheme, as identified by the prosecution, were Vipul Patel and Gaurang Darji. Padhiyar was named in the FIR as someone who worked with them.

A rent agreement was executed in Padhiyar's favour, and the prosecution pointed to his presence at the spot and his status as a law student with knowledge of taxation as indicators of knowing participation in the scheme.

What Padhiyar's Counsel Argued

The applicant's advocates submitted that Padhiyar was merely an employee of Vipul Patel and Gaurang Darji. His work was limited to facilitating their business by securing GST numbers, registering Udyam Certificates, and handling allied paperwork. No independent criminal role was attributed to him beyond these tasks.

Counsel pointed out that no single transaction or money trail was found in Padhiyar's bank account. He had no prior criminal antecedents. The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, leaving nothing further to be recovered or discovered from him. On these facts, it was submitted that bail with suitable conditions was appropriate.

The State's Opposition

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, urging that Padhiyar was deeply involved and that the gravity of the offences militated against bail. The State highlighted that Padhiyar was present at the spot, that his name appeared in the FIR, and that he was a party to the rent agreement connected to the operation.

The APP argued that Padhiyar, being a law student familiar with taxation, had systematically helped siphon amounts through the scheme even if no direct money trail appeared in his account. There was a risk, the State submitted, that he would tamper with evidence or abscond if released.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Suthar reviewed the investigation papers and the statements of witnesses Arjungiri and Prakash Babubhai Patel. The court recorded that while Padhiyar was found at the spot, the evidence placed the main criminal role on Vipul Patel and Gaurang Darji. Padhiyar's involvement, as it emerged from the material, was in opening accounts, registering GST numbers, and carrying out allied work at the instance of those two. No money trail and no independent role beyond that was attributed to him.

The court applied the well-settled bail considerations: the nature of the accusation and severity of punishment; the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; the likelihood of absconding; the character and standing of the accused; and the larger public interest. Applying these to Padhiyar's facts, the court noted six specific circumstances in his favour:

• Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.
• Padhiyar has been in custody since 24 March 2026.
• Nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from him.
• He has no past criminal antecedents.
• Commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time.
• The prosecution failed to point out circumstances justifying continued detention.

The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. Drawing on the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is exception,” and on the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court held that prolonged pre-trial detention in these circumstances would amount to pre-trial conviction.

Outcome

The application was allowed. Ankitkumar Ramchandra Padhiyar is to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The following conditions attach to the bail:

• He shall not misuse the liberty granted or act in a manner injurious to the prosecution's interest.
• He shall not obstruct police investigation or tamper with evidence collected or yet to be collected.
• He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the trial court within one week.
• He shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the trial court.
• He shall mark his presence at the concerned police station once every month for six months, between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
• He shall furnish his Aadhaar card, email ID, and present residential address to the Investigating Officer and to the court at the time of executing the bond, and shall not change his residence or contact number without prior permission of the trial court.
• He shall not indulge in any illegal activity; failure to comply will entitle the trial court to issue a warrant and cancel bail.

The court directed that Padhiyar shall be released only if not required in connection with any other offence. The Sessions Judge concerned is free to issue a warrant or take appropriate action on any breach of conditions. The bail bond is to be executed before the lower court with jurisdiction to try the case. The trial court may delete, modify, or relax any condition in accordance with law.

The court expressly noted that its observations on the evidence at this stage are preliminary in nature and shall not influence the trial court during the actual trial.