Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 03/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Hemant Dayaram Barkade; Respondent – State of Gujarat.
  • FIR Details: FIR C.R. No.11208057260009 of 2026 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Rajkot City.
  • Charges: Offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • Allegations: The applicant, a Secretary of the NGO “Koyan The Vision Samaj Sewa Samiti”, is alleged to have facilitated cyber‑fraud by using the NGO’s bank account (maintained with Central Bank of India) to route proceeds. An amount of ₹9.75 lakhs was credited to this account, and the applicant allegedly received commission from the fraud.
  • Fraud Scale: Accused persons induced the complainant (via a WhatsApp group “A13 Stock Sharing Group”) to download the app “SENDS INV” and transfer a total of ₹87.20 lakhs to various bank accounts. The amount was not returned.
  • Complaints: 21 complaints related to the NGO’s bank account have been registered on the NCRP portal from different parts of the country.
  • Co‑accused: One co‑accused has already been released on bail after receiving a commission of ₹1.50 lakhs; several other co‑accused remain at large (approximately 12 still to be arrested).
  • Applicant’s Defense: Claims to be a law‑abiding citizen, waived service of notice, asserted that he reported the unauthorized transaction to the bank, and sought parity with the co‑accused who is on bail.
  • Prosecution’s Counter: Argues the applicant is prima facie involved, facilitated the use of the NGO account, received commission, and poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing ongoing investigation.
  • Legal Principles Cited: Factors for bail under Section 483 BNSS, RBI directions on reporting suspicious transactions, and numerous Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, Sagar v. State of U.P., State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta, CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the applicant’s role is distinct and more serious than that of the co‑accused already on bail.
  • Considering the magnitude of the alleged fraud (₹87.20 lakhs), the 21 complaints, the risk of evidence tampering, and the presence of several absconding co‑accused, the Court concluded that no case exists to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS.
  • The bail application is dismissed; the order is discharged.

Topics: Bail, Cyber Fraud, Economic Offence