Ahmedabad court denies bail to Bobby Patel, accused of illegally sending citizens to USA
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info

Ahmedabad District & Sessions Court (Rural), has rejected the regular bail of Bharat Patel, alias Bobby, allegedly involved in sending citizens abroad using fabricated documents and bogus passports.
The accused, a 51-year-old businessman, is accused of generating massive "proceeds of crime" by illegally facilitating the transit of Indian nationals to the United States using fraudulent documents.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail, identifying the accused as a primary agent and conspirator in a syndicate that utilised fabricated passports and bogus visas. According to the prosecution, the syndicate charged exorbitant fees – ₹60 lakh to ₹75 lakh per individual, ₹1crore to ₹1.25 crore for couples and up to ₹1.75 crore for families with children.
The ED alleged that the money received from such individuals was deposited by the accused with an angadia firm. The accused and his accomplices have generated Rs 7 crore and the cash deposited in his bank account is alleged to be proceeds of crime.
Defence counsel argued that the accused arrest on June 30, 2025, was illegal, claiming he was not informed of the grounds of arrest and was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The defence also maintained that no material evidence existed to link the accused to the actual receipt of the alleged money.
However, Special Public Prosecutor presented evidence showing that the arrest complied with Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Intimation of Arrest, reason to believe, grounds of arrest were duly served upon him. The accused had signed on copy of these documents. All these documents were received and signature was put in acknowledgement by his relatives.
The court said that the case failed to satisfy the "twin conditions" for bail. Given the gravity of the offence, the court found no grounds for discretionary relief.