Gujarat High Court
Archana Arvindbhai Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 17395
of 2025
==========================================================
ARCHANA ARVINDBHAI PATIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARVIND K THAKUR(2322) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. H. J. ACHARYA(14484) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
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 Part-A C.R. No.11210048240625 of 2024 registered with Umra Police Station for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
3. The facts shorn of undue details and required for appreciating the controversy involved in the present case, as could be gathered from the Memo of Petition and the accompanied documents, are that the present applicant has been summoned by the police alleging that she, along with the other co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy to deceive the complainant and other witnesses by offering a lucrative 3% monthly return on investments being made. It has been further Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined alleged that during the period between 01.12.2021 and 14.03.2024, the accused collected a total sum of Rs.2,86,00,000/- from the complainant and other witnesses at the office of accused No.1, i.e, G-2, West Field Shopping Mall, Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. However, the accused stopped paying the returns in March, 2023 and also failed to refund the principal amount, and thereby have committed a fraud.
4. Thus, apprehending her arrest pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the applicant preferred anticipatory bail before the trial court, however, said application has been rejected by the trial court.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Arvind K. Thakur 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 herself available during the course of investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee from justice. He further submits that total six persons have been arraigned as accused in the FIR, wherein the present applicant has not been named. However, subsequently, during the course of investigation her name has come on surface, and she has been shown as an absconder accused in the charge-sheet. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur also submits that the incident in question took place during the period between 01.12.2021 and 14.03.2024, for which, the FIR came to be lodged on 13.09.2024, and as such, there is a gross delay of almost six months in registering the FIR. He further submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the present offence. She is a homemaker and has no direct control over or participation in the alleged financial transactions or the operations of the VIPS Group of Companies. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur further submits that the present applicant is also an investor in the Company and has received profits on her investments similar to the complainant. He submits that the present applicant has been trying to be apprehended without there being an iota of evidence, only because she is a wife of the accused No.1-Arvind Patil. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur also submits that there was no direct transaction between the complainant and the present applicant and no funds were transferred into the personal bank account of the applicant. He submits that it is pertinent to note that the present applicant only received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from one of the witnesses named in the FIR in December, 2022, which was transferred for a business loan, and no additional funds were given to the applicant. However, after the arrest of the husband of the applicant, taking advantage of her vulnerable situation that her husband is not available to aid and assist her, and as she was born and brought up in Maharashtra and does not understand Gujarati language, Mr. Pradip Jain managed to get two agreements signed and registered under the fraudulent pretenses, and falsely claimed that an amount of Rs.1,81,73,797/- was provided to the present applicant. Moreover, looking to the controversy involved in the case on hand, the same appears to be of a civil nature. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed against the other co-accused, and looking to the charge- sheet papers, it does not appear that the present applicant has lured the complainant or siphoned the money of the complainant.
Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Not only that, it is also not established that any amount has been received by the present applicant in her personal account or she has issued any receipt to anyone. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur further submits that the present applicant has not received any monetary gain out of the alleged transaction. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidences, and all those documents have already been collected by the investigating officer, and as such, now for that, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur submits that the present applicant has been wrongly implicated in the present offence being a wife of the accused No.1, and the said accused No.1, namely, Arvindbhai Ramprasad Patil has already been enlarged on regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Moreover, the applicant is a housewife having four children to be looked after and she has been single- handedly discharging all her parental responsibilities. The younger child of the applicant is eight years . Moreover, she does not have any criminal history.
7. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Thakur for the applicant prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed and the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
8. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by the learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the original complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that the present applicant has been named in the charge-sheet along with her specific role. He further submits that during the course of investigation, on the basis of the materials collected by the investigating officer, the role o the present Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined applicant has come on surface, and as such, she has been arraigned as an accused and has been shown as an absconding accused in the charge-sheet. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submits that the applicant herein is not as innocent as trying to be projected by her learned advocate. He further submits that almost in all the meetings with the investors, the present applicant remained present along with her husband. He also submits that the present applicant is the kingpin, who in connivance with the other co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy to dupe the complainant and other gullible and innocent people. Moreover, there are transactions in the account of the present applicant, and she has received an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from one victim, namely, Pradip Jain, Rs.42,01,500/- from the account of one of the accused persons, namely, Mangesh Khunt and entries of Rs.18,33,819/- are also found in the account of the present applicant from VIPS Group of Companies and its sister concern companies, and as such, the involvement of the present applicant is clearly found out from the materials collected by the investigating officer. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli further submits that the present applicant is evading her arrest since beginning, and thus not cooperating in the investigation. He further submits that the present applicant and her husband are the main conspirators, who lured the complainant and other victims of giving lucrative interest of 3% upon investments being made, and then accepted the investments. Multiple entries have been found in the bank account of the present applicant during the course of investigation. Moreover, while releasing the accused No.1 on bail, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the money trail found in the bank account of the wife of the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined applicant is not a ground to refuse the bail. Thus, from the aforesaid observations, it clearly appears that the present applicant has actively participated in the commission of the crime. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli also submits that WhatsAPP chats have also been recovered by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, from which, it appears that the amount has been collected by both, the present applicant and her husband, and thus, they both have actively participated in the crime. Moreover, from the record, it appears that warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS has also been issued against the present applicant as she is evading her arrest since inception. He submits that the complainant as well as other victims have been duped by the present applicant of a huge amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli further submits that in order to lure the complainant and the victims, false and fabricated advertisements and schemed have been floated by the applicant, and with a view to gain confidence of the complainant and the victims, foreign tours have also been organized by the present applicant and her husband, wherein the present applicant had also accompanied her husband.
9. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Dagli prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
10. The present application has also been opposed by learned APP. Learned APP submits that initially, FIR came to be lodged against total six persons, wherein the name of the applicant has not been mentioned, however, during the course of investigation, on account of certain materials collected by the investigating officer, the involvement of the present applicant has come on Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined surface, and as such, she has been shown as an absconding accused in the charge-sheet. Not only that, statement of number of persons have been recorded, from which also, the role of the present applicant is clearly found out. Moreover, the present applicant is also charged with the offence under the provisions of G.P.I.D. Act, and as such, there is a bar under Section 17(2) of the G.P.I.D Act in granting anticipatory bail applications by the Designated Court for the offence under the said Act.
11. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
13. 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.
14. 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 under the guise of giving huge profit upon investment being made in Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined their scheme, and thereby the complainant as well as other victims have been duped with an amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. From the record, it appears that prima facie evidences in the form of statements of the witnesses and other documentary evidences have been found out, indicating the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the offence. Moreover, there are statements of numbers of witnesses recorded by the investigator, wherein they have clearly stated they have also been duped by the applicant. Further, the offence with which the applicant is charged with is an economic offence and is against the interest of the society.
15. Moreover, the applicant has also been charged with the offence under the provisions of the G.P.I.D 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 G.P.I.D. 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, Special Criminal Application No.212 of 2018, decided 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 Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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 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. 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;Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
(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 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"
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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."
21. 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;Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined [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 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; "
22. 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 Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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."
23. Coming to the case on hand, from the allegations levelled 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. Moreover, there is a bar under Section 17(2) of the G..P.I.D Act in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused charged under the provisions of the said Act. 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.
24. 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 has 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 Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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 decision."
25. 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 Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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 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. 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 Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined not be exercised.
27. 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 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17395/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined anticipatory bail application of the applicant is just and proper and does not require any interference at the end of this Court.
30. In the result, the present application, being devoid of any merit, 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 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 18 of 18 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:42:53 IST 2025