[ High Court of Gujarat ]

Gujarat HC Grants Bail to Accused Who Used AI to Create Defamatory Videos for Extortion of Rs. 23 Lakh

The Gujarat High Court released an accused on regular bail after noting the chargesheet was filed, co-accused had already been bailed on parity, and prolonged pre-trial detention would amount to conviction before trial.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Gujarat — 10 July 2026 — 5 min read

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, on 3 July 2026, granted regular bail to Vishal @ Kano Hemantbhai Kansagara, an accused in a cyber-crime case registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Jamnagar City. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly, allowed the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the accused and co-accused persons collected confidential information about a complainant and a witness, then used Artificial Intelligence to fabricate defamatory videos in order to extort Rs. 23,00,000 from the complainant. The court weighed the parity principle, the completion of investigation, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty before exercising its discretion in favour of release.

The Offences Alleged and the Prosecution's Case

FIR bearing C.R. No. 11202058260001 of 2026 was registered with the Cyber Crime Police Station, Jamnagar City. The offences charged are under Sections 308(5), 308(6), 336(4), 356, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act.

The State's Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on two main grounds. First, the accused persons allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy, collected confidential information relating to the complainant and a witness, and used Artificial Intelligence to create defamatory videos. Through those videos they demanded Rs. 23,00,000 by way of extortion. Second, the prosecution pointed out that the present applicant is involved in another offence of a similar nature, raising the concern that, if released, he was likely to indulge in similar illegal activities.

Applicant's Position and the Undertaking

Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Nothing further remained to be recovered or discovered from him. Importantly, the applicant produced an undertaking before the court stating that he would remain available whenever called upon by the Investigating Agency for a voice spectrograph test and would fully cooperate with the investigation. That undertaking was incorporated as a specific bail condition in the final order.

The Legal Framework the Court Applied

Justice Suthar set out the established factors that govern bail decisions: the nature of the accusation and the severity of punishment; the risk of tampering with witnesses or threatening the complainant; the likelihood of the accused absconding; the character, behaviour, and standing of the accused; and the larger interest of the public or the State.

The court then referred to two Supreme Court decisions. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40, and in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Apex Court had articulated the foundational principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court observed that keeping an accused behind bars while trial remains pending is, in effect, a pre-trial conviction, which runs contrary to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

On the question of parity, the court relied on Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999, to hold that once co-accused persons similarly situated in their role had already been enlarged on regular bail, the present applicant deserved the same consideration.

Factors That Weighed in Favour of Release

The court identified several concrete factors that collectively favoured bail:

Investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.
The applicant had been in custody since 11 January 2026.
Nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from him.
Co-accused persons having a similarly situated role had already been enlarged on regular bail.
The applicant's undertaking to appear for the voice spectrograph test and to cooperate with the investigation.
Commencement and conclusion of trial would, obviously, take its own time.

Having considered these factors, Justice Suthar expressed the prima facie opinion that this was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court imposed a detailed set of conditions alongside the standard bond requirement. The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The specific conditions are:

Not to take undue advantage of or misuse liberty.
Not to act in a manner injurious to the prosecution's interest, obstruct or hamper police investigation, or tamper with evidence collected or yet to be collected.
Surrender passport, if any, to the trial court within one week.
Not to leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the trial court.
Mark presence before the concerned police station once every month for six months, between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.
Furnish Aadhaar card details, email ID, and present residential address to the Investigating Officer and to the court at the time of executing the bond; not to change residence or contact number without prior permission of the trial court.
Not to indulge in any illegal activity, failing which the trial court may issue a warrant and cancel bail.
Not to enter Jamnagar District for six months, except for marking presence before the concerned police station or for attending court proceedings.
Remain available whenever called upon by the Investigating Agency for the voice spectrograph test and fully cooperate with the investigation.

The court clarified that the authorities should release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence. If any condition is breached, the Sessions Judge concerned would be free to issue a warrant or take appropriate action.

Outcome

The application was allowed and the rule was made absolute. The bail bond is to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case, which retains the power to delete, modify, or relax any of the conditions in accordance with law. The trial court was also directed not to be influenced by any preliminary observations on evidence made by the High Court in this order.