Gujarat High Court
Kanaiyalal Sankabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 21/08/2025
Pronounced On : 02/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 25444 of 2024
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- √
=======================================================
KANAIYALAL SANKABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DEVDIP BRAHMBHATT(3490) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UTSAV H KHAMAR(14493) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing instant application, the applicant has sought anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11206020241171/2024 registered with Kadi Police Station, Mehsana for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt for the original complainant.
Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Dagli has referred to the allegations leveled in the FIR and submitted that the incident has occurred during the period between 29.10.2018 to 29.10.2023, for which, FIR has been lodged on 15.11.2024 and thus, there is gross delay in registering the FIR, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.3. He further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused have given attractive offers to the complainant and other innocent persons of good returns in case they would invest their money in the properties as per their instruction and pursuant thereto, they have invested their money and initially the accused have returned back some amount to them and thereby the accused have committed alleged offences. He submitted that though the allegations and accusation are leveled in the FIR against the applicant, the applicant has never come in contact with any investor nor the applicant has received single penny from any investor and thus, the applicant is not directly or indirectly involved in the commission of crime but despite the said fact, he has been wrongly arraigned as accused by the original complainant with oblique motive and it is the original accused no.1, Kanaiyalal Manilal Patel, who collected the amount from the investors and, thereafter, invested the said amount with one Ramanpuri Chhaganpuri Goswami and the applicant is not aware about the said transaction and where the amount Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined had gone. He submitted that in fact, all the persons have invested their amount with said Ramanpuri Goswami, who had also committed breach with the original accused no.1, therefore, the original accused no.1 had addressed a written complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister narrating all facts and pursuant thereto, office of the Chief Minister wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department for initiating appropriate action against the said Ramanpuri Goswami, copies of those documents are produced on record. He also referred to the promissory notes produced on record and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the said set of documents, in that event, it is found out that the said Ramanpuri Goswami has signed the said promissory note and thereby has accepted the liability and responsibility to carry on said scheme and not only that, he has also accepted to return the said amount. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the above facts, it is clear that the applicant has not received amount from the investors nor he had given any assurance to them but he being a partner in the partnership firm, is wrongly arraigned as accused. He also referred to the public notice published in Sandesh Newspaper of Mehsana edition by one Sanjay Barot, advocate as well as public notice given by one Manoj Joshi, copies of which are produced on record and submitted that by the said notice, it was pointed Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined out to public at large that they have not financial relations and/or business with the original accused no.1 and the said Ramanpuri Goswami had collected huge amount from the investors and thus, the applicant is wrongly dragged into the alleged commission of crime. It is, therefore, urged that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice and is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions while releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Brahmbhatt appearing for the original complainant has objected the present application with a vehemence and submitted that though the applicant herein has come with a specific case that he is not directly or indirectly connected with the alleged commission of crime, involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the allegations leveled in the body of the FIR. He submitted that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was put into motion and the statements of number of witnesses have been recorded, wherein they have disclosed the name of all the accused persons including the applicant Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined herein. He submitted that he is not privy to the statements of those witnesses at this stage but he appeared in the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the co-accused and came to know about the said fact. He submitted that in fact, the scam is more than of Rs.150.00 crores and right from the beginning, it was the modus operandi of all the accused to collect huge volume of amount from the innocent and gullible persons by giving attractive offers and then duped them and as part of said conspiracy, they have acted in a particular manner and dupe number of persons.
5. Learned advocate has referred to the documents produced by the applicant at the time of filing of the present application and submitted that in fact the intention of the applicant by producing those documents on record including the promissory note purportedly signed by one Ramanpuri Ghhaganpuri Goswami is to throw entire liability of the applicant upon the said Ramanpuri Goswami contending that the said Ramanpuri has accepted the liability and responsibility to carry on said scheme and the fact that he has received the amount collected by the accused and thereby accepted the charge of guilt, however, the said fact is not correct because at the instance of present applicant and other accused persons, the said Ramanpuri Goswami was acting and collecting the amount. He submitted that in fact, during the course of investigation, the statements of number Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined of witnesses have been recorded, from which, it is found out that total volume of amount as mentioned in those documents are more than Rs.80.00 crores. He referred to the contents of partnership deed produced on record and submitted that the said document is prepared by the accused no.1 in his own handwriting and if the contents of the said deed is seen, in that event, it is found out that the person does not have caliber to write the content of the deed and to whom more than Rs.80.00 crores have been entrusted by the accused no.1. He, however, submitted that admittedly the said amount had already been collected by the accused no.1 and the present applicant and thus right from the beginning, the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the investigation papers collected so far.
6. Learned advocate further submitted that in fact, the applicant has tried to throw all his liabilities upon the accused no.1 by stating that the applicant had not directly or indirectly come in contact with any stakeholders and all the documents have been executed by the accused no.1 in favour of the investors and the said accused no.1 is not arrested and warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC has also been issued by the competent court. He submitted that in fact, the documents executed by the accused no.1 and/or the said Ramanpuri Goswami all are lying in the custody of the accused no.1 and the concerned Investigating Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Officer is badly in need of those set of documents but due to non-availability of the accused no.1, he could not secure those important documents, whereas the applicant herein has produced on record xerox copies of those documents and has come with specific case that all the transactions took place between the investors and the accused no.1, however, the said story put forward by the prosecution is prima facie non palatable and believable one.
7. Learned advocate submitted that this is a very serious crime organized by the accused in connivance with each other with a sole intent to dupe the innocent and gullible persons, therefore at the time of registration of the FIR, the provision of the GPID Act was invoked, therefore, the investigation is required to be carried out with utmost care and caution. It is, therefore, urged that as prima facie involvement of the applicant is found out, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, therefore, the present application may be rejected.
8. Learned APP Mr. Soni for the respondent - State of Gujarat has also vehemently objected the present application and contended that prima facie involvement of the applicant is found out from the investigation papers collected so far. He referred to entire sequence of incident of events narrated by the complainant in a very graphical manner and submitted that specific role is attributed to the Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined applicant herein. He submitted that the modus operandi of the accused was to dupe the innocent and gullible persons and as a part of it, they have lured the persons by giving attractive offers, whose statements have been recorded, wherein they have stated in a very categorically terms about the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. He submitted that though the liability has been fastened upon the accused no.1 and the said Ramanpuri Goswami, the applicant is also equally responsible and liable for the alleged commission of crime and the said fact is substantiated from the investigation papers collected so far including the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, who has stated in a categorical terms that they have invested the huge volume of amount at the instance of the accused no.1 and the present applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the allegations and accusation leveled in the FIR and as the investigation is at crucial stage, the discretionary relief may not be exercised in favour of the applicant, therefore, the present application may not be entertained.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicants including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided.
10. It is required to be noted that normal procedure prescribed for curtailing the right to life & liberty, is that the investigating officer can arrest the accused even without warrant. No doubt this Court has extraordinary power to protect an innocent person. However, this power has to be exercised by the Courts with due circumspection. It is required to be noted that the grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed.
Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
11. There is no substantial difference between Sections 482 and 483 of BNS, 2023 so far as appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Ganesh Babu Vs. P.T. Manokaran & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 434; in case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 213; and in case of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 305.
12. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered the allegations Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined leveled in the FIR, it is found out that the accused have hatched conspiracy to offer attractive scheme to the innocent and gullible persons of good returns against their investment and relying upon their statement, the accused have pocketed huge volume of amount from the innocent and gullible persons to the tune of Rs.8,58,00,000/- and, thereafter, they have retracted from their statement of giving profit on their investment, which resulted into registration of the FIR. I have considered the affidavit filed by the concerned Investigating Officer opposing the bail application preferred by the accused before the learned Judge concerned, which clearly goes on to show that strong apprehension has been shown with regard to tampering of the evidence and hampering of the witnesses. I have also gone through the findings given and conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge while rejecting the bail application.
13. Though the contentions have been made by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has nothing to do with the alleged commission of crime and he is wrongly involved in the commission of crime and the real accused is the original accused nos.1 and one Ramanpuri Goswami, the said submissions are contrary to the investigation papers gathered so far. On the contrary, the investigation carried out so far clearly goes on to show the involvement Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined of the applicant in the commission of crime. It is found out from the record that all the accused are connected to each other and their modus operandi to cheat the innocent person is clearly spelt out. On examination of the investigation papers supplied by learned APP during the course of hearing, it is found out that right from the inception, it was the intention of the accused to cheat the innocent and gullible persons and as a party of said conspiracy, after collecting huge volume of amount, they have defrauded the persons and thereby pocketed huge volume of amount under the guise of investment but that was the systematic racket of the accused to cheat number of persons. Not only that, as pointed out by learned advocate appearing for the original complainant, the amount reaches upto Rs.130.00- 150.00 crores, which the accused have pocketed and thus, this is a huge scam of the accused, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.
14. Much emphasis has been made upon one of the witness cited in the present case viz., Ramanpuri Goswami by learned advocate for the applicant contending that he is the main accused, who has collected huge volume of amount from the investors at the instance of the accused no.1 and in that process, the applicant is not at all involved nor he is aware about the same. However, I have considered the statement of said Ramanpuri Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Goswami, copy of which is provided during the course of hearing and on examination of the said statement, it is found out that the said witness has narrated the entire incidents of events in a very graphical manner and as to how the amount was travelled from one place to other. Over and above that, in fact, the statement of said witness has also been considered by this Court while deciding an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.6719/2025 of one Kalpeshbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati in connection with another FIR registered for identical offence. It is required to be noted that this being an application for anticipatory bail, I am conscious about the fact that the detailed examination and discussion of material is required to be avoided, otherwise, it would affect the case of the accused at the time of trial. Therefore, I restrain myself from elaborating the said statement, however, I must say that the role of the applicant is clearly spelt out from the statement of said witness.
15. Moreover, the applicant has also been charged with the offence under the provisions of the GPID Act, and the exercise of power under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) is inapplicable in the offences under the provisions of the GPID Act. In this regard let me refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Geetaben Manishkumar Shah Vs. State of Gujarat while deciding Special Criminal Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined Application No.212 of 2018 on 15.03.2028, wherein in Para-44, this Court has observed as under;
"44. The entire argument inviting me to specifically decide whether a court of a Designated Judge, for a certain purpose, is a court of Magistrate or a court of Session revolves round a mistaken belief that a Designated Judge has to be one or the other, and must fit in the slot of a Magistrate or a Court of Session. Such an approach would strangulate the functioning of the court and must be eschewed. Shorn of all embellishment, the court of a Designated Judge is a court of original criminal jurisdiction. As a court of original criminal jurisdiction in order to make it functionally oriented some powers were conferred by the statute setting up the court. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a court of original criminal jurisdiction not being hide bound by the terminological status description of Magistrate or a Court of Session. Under the Code, it will enjoy all powers which a court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys save and except the ones specifically denied. Without causing any violence to the words of section 17(2) of the Act, 2003, the plain reading of the same would indicate that the Court of the original criminal jurisdiction has been denuded of the power to grant anticipatory bail to an accused under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. To Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined put it in other words, the power to grant anticipatory bail appears to have been specifically denied to the court of the original criminal jurisdiction."
16. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of misappropriating crores of rupees of the complainant as well as the other gullible people is quite grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon me to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.
17. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/ deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question.
Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
18. It is well settled that an application preferred for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted in exception cases. The parameters and considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation".
19. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.21, observed as under:-
"21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
20. In State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia & Anr., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the nature of the right of anticipatory bail and observed as under:
"We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code..... Also anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21."
21. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as this application has been preferred under the provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, I court would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, more particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as under :-
"14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When we carefully analyze this section, the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also pressed in service the age- old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the anticipatory bail: The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. Whereas the accusation have been made only with the object to injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529 held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined "It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
23. Thus while taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as also ratio laid down in other decisions as stated above, I have gone through the contents of the FIR, which is placed on record and also considered the affidavit of the investigating officer filed before the learned Judge concerned opposing the bail application preferred by the applicants. Upon Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that prima facie case is made out against the applicants and material collected so far suggests the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime.
24. Now coming back to the case on hand, it is found out from the allegations levelled in the FIR and the materials placed on record that very serious allegations of pocketing of crores of rupees by offering attractive offers have been made against the applicant. Moreover, the present case also falls within the category of economic offences and the amount involved in the present case is quite huge and it is trite law that in economic offences, benefit of pre-arrest bail should not be extended in favour of the accused in a casual manner. Further, there is a bar under Section 17(2) of the GPID Act in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused charged with under the provisions of the said Act. Further, the offence as alleged is also non-bailable and punishable with life imprisonment. Thus considering the above stated aspects as well as the precedent cited above, in my view, at this stage, custodial interrogation of the applicants is very much necessary.
25. At this stage, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In this regard, I would like to place reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, in case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, in case of Gautam Kundu Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money- Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1, in case of State of Bihar & Anr., Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. The Supreme Court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under:-
"5. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..."
26. It is required to be noted at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judicial pronouncements have observed that a court may reject an anticipatory bail application when custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for a thorough investigation, even if the applicant argues that such interrogation is not required. Further, while custodial interrogation can be a factor in denying anticipatory bail, it is not the sole determinant, and courts will also consider other factors related to the severity of the offense and the need for a comprehensive investigation.
27. In view of above discussion and considering the materials produced before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that there seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that at the initial stage of the investigation of the offence, grant Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/25444/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant is likely to hamper the investigation and investigating agency is likely to lose an opportunity to exploit all the fact situation, probabilities or opportunities which the Agency may get during the custodial interrogation of a person, and therefore, keeping in mind all the factors, no interference is required at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail and it is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 to be exercised with caution in exceptional cases.
28. Hence, the present application seeking for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
29. Needless to say that observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of these pre-arrest bail applications and shall not influence any other proceedings arise from impugned FIR.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:36:01 IST 2025