Gujarat High Court
Rahul Ramesh @ Rahul Ramesh Remeshan vs State Of Gujarat on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 22/08/2025
Pronounced On : 02/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 14975
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
RAHUL RAMESH @ RAHUL RAMESH REMESHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HRIDYA BUCH, LD. ADV. WITH PANKEET P AUNDHIYA(9421) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAL UNWALLA, LD. SR. ADV. WITH MR. ISHAN JOSHI, LD. ADV. &
MR.DHANS DESAI, LD. ADV. FOR SINGHI & CO(2725) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined No.11191011250177 of 2025 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. The glimpse of the case of the prosecution is that the FIR came to be lodged by one Mr. Raghuram Raghulav, Director of Elite Green Pvt. Ltd., inter alia, alleging therein that the present applicant, who was working as the Purchase Manager, in collusion with other co-accused, hatched a conspiracy to cause financial loss to the Company by facilitating the procurement and export of Indian Bulk Raw Sugar at inflated rates, violating the Government restrictions, and misrepresenting the product as 'Organic Cane Raw Sugar' in shipping documents. It has been further alleged that the present applicant prepared purchase orders at Rs.42/kg, resulting in excess payments and unauthorized financial gain, and that he personally received Rs.1,17,78,940/- in his account and Rs.16,00,003/- in his wife's account during the period between 2023 and 2024, thereby contributing to an overall company loss estimated to Rs.17.18 Crores. With this sort of allegations, the present FIR has been registered.
4. Thus, apprehending his arrest pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant preferred anticipatory bail before the trial court, however, the trial court has not entertained the said application and rejected the same.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pankeet Aundhiya and learned advocate Mr. Shivam Thakkar appearing for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR are of such a nature, for which, custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee from justice. He further submitted that the FIR came to be lodged on 26.06.2025 for the incident alleged to have taken place during the period between 01.01;2024 and 24.06.2025, and as such, there is a delay of almost one and half years from the offence stated to have begun and two days from the date when it alleged to have ended, and therefore, the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law, filed with an oblique and ulterior motive to recovery money, which is contrary to the settled principle of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions that the criminal proceedings should not be initiated to resolve civil disputes, such as a recovery of money, unless there is a clear element of criminal intent like cheating or criminal breach of trust from the very inception. Learned advocate Mr. Buch also submitted that the FIR came to be lodged against total three persons, wherein the present applicant has been shown as accused No.2. He submitted that the accused No.1 was arrested and subsequently released on regular bail, whereas accused No.3 has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the trial court, and as such, on the ground of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined as his role is lesser than the accused Nos.1 and 3, who have already been set at liberty. He further submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR is to be read in its entirety, it appears that no specific overt act is attributed to the present applicant, except the allegation that the present applicant was very well aware about all the irregularities being committed by the other co-accused, and despite the same he kept silence, and thereby made a hand in glove with the other co-accused in the misappropriation of crores of rupees of the Company. He submitted that thus, whatever allegations have been made against the present applicant are upon surmises and conjectures, and the complainant completely fails to disclose any specific overt act being committed by the present applicant that could constitute an offence under Sections 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He submitted that the FIR merely makes generalized and omnibus accusations of conspiracy and loss to the company without narrating when, how, or in what manner, the applicant acted in concert with others to commit the alleged offence.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that as per the complainant's own narration in the FIR, if the Company intends to purchase goods, the process had to be initiated through the Export Officer and not the Purchase Officer. It was the Export Officer who was responsible for preparing the cost sheet detailing the purchase price, transportation charges, selling price, and projected profit, and then the same was required to be sent to the higher officer for approval, and only after such approval, the Purchase Manager, i.e, the present Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined applicant, could process to formally issue the purchase order. This clearly indicates that the applicant acted purely upon the instructions of his superiors and was never the initiating or decision making authority in any transaction. Thus, the FIR contains a generic and sweeping allegations that the applicant was hand-in-glove with the other co-accused persons, however, there is not a single piece of direct, cogent or corroborative evidence being brought on record in support of the same. There is no document, communication, meeting or transaction being cited to demonstrate any prior agreement, common object, or shared criminal intent involving the present applicant. Only on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, the applicant has been arraigned as an accused without there being any specific overt act.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that the allegations are to the effect that though the purchase order of 'Khandsari Sugar' was approved by the higher officers at the rate of Rs.42/kg, yet at the time of preparing issuing the purchase order, the rate of the same was shown to be of Rs.42.5/kg by the applicant, due to which, the Company had to make excess payment, and therefore, had to suffer a huge financial loss. However, even the applicant had processed the purchase order at Rs.42/kg, i.e, at a lower rate and that too only after obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority. Therefore, even assuming any financial discrepancy occurred, the same was subsequent to and independent of the applicant's limited clerical role as the purchase manager, and as such, the applicant cannot be held liable for the Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined downstream financial outcomes, which were beyond his control. He also submitted that as soon as the applicant came to know about the said fact, he started making efforts and the said amount was also given back to the complainant's Company by issuing credit note. Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that the FIR also attributes regulatory violations such as mislabeling 'Khandsari Sugar' as 'Organic Cane Raw Sugar' in export documents and the failure to furnish an organic certificate, which allegedly led to payment disputes and customs issues. However, these functions like shipping compliance, port handling, customs declarations, and documentation were entirely outside the applicant's domain as Purchase Manager. Learned advocate Mr. Buch also submitted that the present consignment was undertaken on FOB (Free on Board) terms, under which, the responsibility for preparing the Bill of Lading lies with the purchaser and not with the seller. He submitted that it is significant to note that the complainant himself has admitted in the FIR that all the customs documents correctly mentioned the goods as Khandsari Sugar, and that the error of referring to it as 'Indian Bulk Raw Sugar' occurred only in the Bill of Lading, which is the responsibility of the buyer. This clearly establishes that the present applicant had no role, authority, or involvement in the preparation or submission of the Bill of Lading. The alleged misdescription, if any, is a result of documentation carried out by the purchaser or its agents, and cannot be attributed to the applicant in any manner.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Buch further submitted that the Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined allegations of criminal conspiracy is not supported by any material indicating a meeting of minds, premediated agreement, or coordinated act between the applicant and any of the co-accused. The FIR also does not mention any conversation, meeting, correspondence or communicative act that would imply the applicant's knowing participation in a criminal conspiracy. Moreover, Mr. Mohit Solanki, who approved each cost-sheet, pricing proposal, and export transactions and whose E-mail ID is repeatedly referred to in the FIR, has not been named as a suspect or co-accused in the FIR. He submitted that so far as the allegations of receipt of Rs.1.17 crores in the account of the applicant and Rs.16,00,000/- in the account of the wife of the applicant is concerned, the said amount was given to the applicant to purchase a property in Kerala for the purpose of starting a business entity in Kerala. Thus, merely on the ground that certain amount was credited in the account of the applicant as well as his wife, he cannot be held liable. He further submitted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, fail to establish a prima facie case of any criminal misconduct on the part of the applicant. The allegations against the present applicant are false, baseless and malicious. Learned advocate Mr. Buch submitted that the entire dispute is of a civil nature, which has been given a veneer of criminality by the complainant to circumvent legal procedure for recovery. He submitted that the present applicant was merely an employee and not a Director of M/s. Elite Green Pvt. Ltd. Learned advocate Mr. Buch also submitted that for an offence of cheating, the prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined intention from the very beginning of the transaction. He further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence, and there is no recovery to be made from the present applicant, and therefore his custodial interrogation is not necessary, as it would be punitive rather than investigative. Learned advocate Mr. Buch submitted that the present applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court.
10. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Buch for the applicant prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
11. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni. Learned APP submitted that the present applicant has been named in the FIR along with his specific role. Learned APP submitted that the applicant herein is not as innocent as projected by his learned advocate. He is the main kingpin of the entire episode. Learned APP Mr. Soni further submitted that the present applicant was working as the Purchase Manager, whereas the accused No.1 was working as the Export Officer, and they both were posted at Mumbai, and the complainant's corporate office is situated at Ahmedabad, and as per the established practice and procedure of the Company, before entering into any business transaction, they have to Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined obtain the approval from the higher arms. Learned APP Mr. Soni also submitted that, in fact, during the course of investigation, the concerned investigator has collected certain documents, which show that the present applicant is directly involved in the commission of the crime. Learned APP also submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that one Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. used to sell goods to the complainant's Company. The said Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. had transferred huge volume of amount in the account of the applicant and his wife, as well as his father, sister, sister-in- law, father-in-law and mother-in-law, and the entries in this regard from the account of the Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. to the accounts of all those individuals have already been collected by the investigating officer. He also submitted that a well designed plan was organized by the present applicant with the help of the Export Manager. Even the co-accused, Purvesh Vora had transferred an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- in the account of the applicant to purchase a car. He submitted that a huge sum of Rs. 1,86,64,940/- was transferred in the bank account of the applicant as well as his relatives by the Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd., and the interrogation of the present applicant with in this regard is very much necessary. The aforesaid transactions clearly show that the present applicant is directly involved in the commission of the crime and was taking undue advantage of his post of Purchase Manager. Not only that, it is the specific case of the complainant that the present applicant and the accused No.1 are the main perpetrators who had created a dummy firm in the name of Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. and from the account of the said Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined dummy Company, huge volume of amount had been transferred in the Bank account of the applicant and his relatives, for which, the interrogation of the present applicant is very much necessary.
12. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
13. This application has also been opposed by learned senior advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Dhansh Desai for Singhi & Co. He submitted that the applicant joined the Company in 2018, and has been working as Procurement Manager directly under accused No.1. As the Procurement Manager, the applicant was responsible for coordinating procurement activities including placing orders, generating invoices and ensuring that all purchase contracts and documentation were in order. However, contrary to the policies and principles of the Company, the applicant actively facilitated transactions, which later found to be fraudulent and illegal, including over payments, manipulation of documents and participation in a vendor-kickback network. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that on 07.03.2024, the accused No.1, on behalf of the Company, entered into a contract with Sucro Can Sourcing LLC to export 'Indian Bulk Raw Sugar' a restricted item under a Government of India notification dated 18.10.2023. He further submitted that to obtain the internal approval, the accused No.1 misrepresented the product as unrestricted 'Khandsari Sugar' in an email dated 01.04.202, Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined leading to the Company's unknowing approval. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla submitted that subsequently, to meet with the requirements of the sugar to be exported, the applicant placed orders for the sugar with M/s. Mier Commodities who was introduced by the accused No.1 as also from one Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. whose owner is the accused No.3. He also submitted that the Company was compelled to make excess payments to both vendors under explicit threat that the goods would be withheld at the port and further supplies for export would be stopped, unless such payments, beyond the agreed contractual terms, were made. In consequence, Mier Commodities received Rs.0.5/kg excess, and Dwarkesh Exim Pvt. Ltd. raised inflated invoices reflecting unwarranted hikes ranging from Rs.0.4/kg upto Rs.2/kg. The present applicant had the full knowledge about these illegal over payments and willfully suppressed this material fact from the Company. Thus, such deliberated concealment and active facilitation of wrongful gain to the vendors demonstrate the applicant's direct nexus and common intention with accused No.1 in perpetrating the offence. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that the role of the applicant is neither incidental nor peripheral but central to the conspiracy, thereby disentitling him from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
14. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that the goods were then sent to the Mumbai Port for export to Sucro Can. Make India Impex was also introduced by accused No.1, who was appointed as the Clearing House Agent for port Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined operations and customs clearance. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla also submitted that due to the discrepancies in documentation and the absence of the mandatory organic certificate, the export was delayed, resulting in port charges amounting to Rs.7.17 crores being raised by Make India Impex. That apart, the Company also suffered a further loss of Rs.9 crores in its transaction with Sucro Can, as Sucro Can has withheld payment due to non-receipt of the organic certificate. He submitted that the Company is unable to furnish the said organic certificate, as the issuance and export of organic sugar stood restricted by the Government of India. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that the review of Dwarkesh's financial statements reveal that it had no prior business activity or independent procurement capacity before its engagement with the Company, which indicates that it was a dummy Company. He also submitted that Emails dated 30.06.2023 clearly establish that the applicant was in direct collusion with Dwarkesh before Dwarkesh was officially engaged by the Company, clearly evidencing the applicant's proactive involvement in setting up the dummy vendor to siphon away the funds of the Company. Moreover, illicit payments totaling to Rs.1.17 crores was deposited in the account of the applicant and an additional Rs.16,00,000/- was deposited in the account of the wife of the applicant from the account of the accused No.3, which remains unexplained by the applicant, and is required to be thoroughly interrogated. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that the applicant has played a major role in direct communication with Dwarkesh and Make India Impex, highlighting vendor Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined favouritism, acceptance of kickbacks, and manipulation of procurement processes. Not only that, an FIR dated 04.07.2025 was registered with the Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai against the accused No.1 and the complainant and other Directors of the Company by Make India Impex alleging non-payment of approximately Rs.7.85 crores by the Company. This indicates that the said counter-complaint has been strategically initiated with the intent to harass the complainant and deter him from pursuing further action against the accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that the export consignment was falsely declared as 'Khandsari Sugar' and later as 'Indian Organic Cane Raw Sugar' in shipping documents to evade government restrictions. This misrepresentation forms a case of criminal breach of trust and organized cheating, and not merely a civil dispute. He submitted that even assuming for a moment, without admitting it, that the applicant had no independent authority to take decisions, however, the fact that the applicant was aware of the ongoing conspiracy and chose not to raise any issues with the complainant goes to show that the applicant has knowingly participated in the fraud and cannot at this stage shirk away from taking responsibility for the act committed.
15. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned senior advocate Mr. Unwalla prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined
17. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Hence, custodial interrogation is required.
18. It appears from the record that there is a huge scam of crores of rupees alleged to have been committed by the present applicant along with the other co-accused while performing his duties as the Purchase Manager in the complainant's Company. It also appears from the record that huge volume of amount had been transferred in the account of the present applicant as well as his wife and other close relatives, which runs into crores of rupees, and the same was alleged to have been received by the applicant by misappropriating the funds of the complainant's Company. The allegations are very specific and serious in nature. Moreover, from the record produced and the arguments canvassed, there appears to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the crime, and as such, at this stage when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is badly needed. Further, the offence with which the applicant is Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined charged with is an economic offence and is against the interest of the society.
19. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of misappropriating crores of rupees of the complainant's Company 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.
20. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. After a thorough deliberation, the Supreme Court arrived at the following conclusion:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
xxx xxx xxx"
21. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
22. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail.
23. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that "the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at 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 Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined 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."
24. This Court after considering number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, has observed in case of MOHMED SALIM ABDUL RASID SHAIKH V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2001 [2] GLR 1580 as under;
"13. There is no scope for present applicant to urge that he may be saved from disgrace or unwarranted hardship. While entertaining the anticipatory bail application of the accused, the Court should consider various aspects such as;
[i] earlier offences registered against the applicant accused and the nature thereof including the area of activity, modus etc. if brought to the notice of the Court;
[ii] gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed. Whether custodial interrogation is, prima facie, unavoidable ?
[iii] likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
[iv] position and status of the accused individually and also with reference to the victim and witnesses; [v] likelihood of repetition of similar type of offence;
[vi] whether he would jeopardise his own life being faced with grief or grim prospects of possible conviction in the case;
[vii] likelihood of tampering with the evidence or witnesses during the process of investigation, status and Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined stage of investigation;
[viii] plea of false implication on some special vendetta, if taken.
[ix] other relevant grounds which may apply to facts and circumstances of that particular case; "
25. Similarly, the Apex Court has also considered the scope of Section 438 in case of DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [FERA] V. ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA reported in 1998 [1] SCC 52. The relevant observations made in para-7 are quoted as under :-
"7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the Court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of the law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order full insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual."
26. Coming to the case on hand, from the allegations levelled Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined in the FIR and the materials placed on record, it appears that the very serious allegations of misappropriation of crores of rupees 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. The amount involved in the present case is also quite huge, and the offence as alleged is also punishable with life imprisonment. Thus, at this stage, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary.
27. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant to grant bail to the applicant on the ground that the other co-accused have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted as parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. In this context, I would like to refer to and rely upon some of the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Special Leave Petition No.9431 of 2023, decided on 20.11.2023, which read thus;
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki Nandan Garg, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria, who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted bail by the High Court, however the said order of High Court has been challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the same is pending under consideration. In the instant case, the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-
to-day operations of the company. It was also observed that the appellant's role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation with regard to the said order passed by the High Court.
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined decision."
28. Lastly, 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 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. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money- Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1, State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (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 State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, (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 deliberate design with an eye on personal profit Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined 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..."
29. Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case of custodial interrogation of the accused is made out by the prosecution for securing the incriminating materials from the information likely to be received from the accused, then the power under Section 482 should not be exercised in a routine manner. The presence of the applicant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to be needed to uncover the truth. Further, the discretion under Section 482 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving cheating and misappropriation of huge volume of amount, the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS should not be exercised.
30. Thus, what is discernible from the above is that while deciding anticipatory bail application, it is the first duty of the Court to see seriousness of the offence, prima facie case and interest of the society at a large. Therefore, when no special and compelling circumstances are made out and no case of false implication of present applicant in the alleged offence is Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined made out before this Court, I am of the opinion that this Court should refrain itself from exercising its discretionary powers in favour of the present applicant at this stage.
31. Further, the present applicant is involved in white collar socio-economic offence which constitute a class apart and needs to be visited with a different approach. The economic offences adversely affect the economic and social fabric of the country. In such circumstances also, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would frustrate the investigation.
32. In view of above discussion and considering the materials produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that there seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that at the initial stage of the investigation of the offence, grant 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. The impugned order passed by the trial court, rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant is just and proper and does not require any interference at the end of this Court.
33. In the result, the present application, being devoid of any merit, fails and is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court herein above at this stage while deciding the anticipatory bail application, would Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14975/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined not come in the way of the applicant at the time as and when if ultimately the trial court is proceeded with the trial, and at the stage of consideration of regular bail application, if preferred by the applicant. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:31:36 IST 2025