Vishalkumar Nathabhai Sakadasariya vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Vishalkumar Nathabhai Sakadasariya vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2026

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/CR.MA/8516/2026                               ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026

                                                                                                            undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 8516
                                                   of 2026

                        ==========================================================
                                            VISHALKUMAR NATHABHAI SAKADASARIYA
                                                           Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR MITESH AMIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. RAHUL R
                        DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                        MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                      Date : 27/04/2026

                                                        ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of notice of rule for respondent-State.

2. By way of the present Application preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"), the Applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in connection with F IR being C.R. No. I-11210047251103 of 2025 dated 11.06.2025 registered with Udhana Police Station, Surat, for the offences alleged to have been committed during the period from the year 2022 to September 2024, punishable under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003. The Applicant is arrayed as Accused No. 2 out of the six accused persons named in the said FIR.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined

3. The Complainant, Mr. Parth s/o Vasantbhai Khadela, has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that all the accused persons, pursuant to a pre-planned criminal conspiracy, induced the first informant to invest in Forex trading by assuring lucrative returns of 7% to 8% per month and representing that the present Applicant himself was earning approximately Rs. 10 to 12 lakhs per month. It is further alleged that the first informant was initially persuaded to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a token amount, pursuant to which a Forex account was opened in his name and an initial investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- came to be made.

4. It is further alleged that, in order to gain the confidence of the first informant, certain initial profits were shown, and thereafter, the accused persons induced him to invest further by promising higher returns of 10% to 12%. It is alleged that the accused demanded additional funds on the pretext that the first informant's account would be blocked in case of non-payment and that such payments were necessary to continue operating the account. In this manner, the first informant is stated to have invested a total sum of Rs. 39,00,000/-. It is further alleged that, upon the first informant demanding repayment, the accused persons issued threats and thereby committed acts of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered against all the persons involved.

5. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mitesh Amin assisted with learned advocate Mr.R.R.Dholakia for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Shruti Pathak for respondent-State.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined

6. At the outset, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Amin for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. An undertaking has been placed on record on behalf of the Applicant stating that a total of 16 victims are involved and the aggregate amount in question is Rs. 3,45,81,000/-, in respect of which four FIRs have been registered against the Applicant and other accused persons. It is further submitted that out of the said amount, Accused No.1, Mr. Mit Pravinbhai Khokhar had undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by this Court while granting him bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5442 of 2026 and allied matters.

7. It is further submitted that the present Applicant has also undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as a precondition, and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- shall be paid in five equal monthly installments. It is also submitted that the Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.

8. On merits, Ld. Senior Advocate has submitted that, as per the FIR, the original Complainant had initially approached Accused No.1 - Mit, who opened an account in EONE FX, and thereafter, the said account came to be transferred to SECURE FX. It is contended that the present Applicant was associated only with EONE FX and had no connection with SECURE FX. It is further submitted that the chart placed on record indicates that the Complainant had earned profits during the period when the account was maintained with EONE FX, and that the account reflected a zero balance only after Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined the funds were transferred to SECURE FX.

9. On this basis, it is argued that the Applicant has been roped in solely on account of his alleged association with EONE FX. It is further submitted that, apart from the undertaking given--without prejudice to his rights and contentions and only to demonstrate bona fides--even on merits, no prima facie case is made out against the Applicant. It is, therefore, urged that the present Application be allowed and the Applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail, as no custodial interrogation is required.

10. Per contra, Ld. APP Ms. Pathak has opposed the Application and submitted that, at this stage, the role of the present Applicant cannot be segregated, as the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that there are other offences of a similar nature registered against the Applicant. Prima facie, there are six accused persons against whom material has been collected indicating that they are interconnected and involved in luring investors with promises of high returns and thereafter misappropriating the invested amounts.

11. Ld. APP Ms. Pathak has further submitted that, as per the reply received from SEBI, neither EONE FX nor SECURE FX, nor the present Applicant and other co-accused, were registered as intermediaries with SEBI. It is also pointed out that the mobile numbers and addresses provided during the course of investigation were found to be incorrect and were traced to angadiya services. It is, therefore, submitted that a detailed and thorough investigation is required to unearth the truth, for which custodial interrogation of Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined the Applicant is necessary. Accordingly, it is urged that the present Application be rejected.

12. Having heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties, at the outset, it is required to be noted that this Court is considering an Application for anticipatory bail. It is well settled, by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, that while deciding such an application, the Court is required to consider, inter alia, the following factors: (i) whether there exists any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; (ii) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) the severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) the likelihood of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; and (v) the character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused.

13. In the present case, multiple complaints have been registered against the Applicant and other accused persons alleging offences of a similar nature, namely, inducing investors by promising high returns and thereafter collecting substantial amounts and misappropriating the same. The aggregate amount involved across four such cases is stated to be Rs. 3,45,81,000/-. It further appears that not only the present Complainant but several other persons have also been duped. The reply received from SEBI indicates that EONE FX, SECURE FX, the Applicant, and other co-accused were not registered as intermediaries, which prima facie reflects an intention to lure investors from the very inception. The offences alleged are economic offences affecting the larger interest of society. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined there is prima facie material indicating the involvement of the Applicant in the commission of the offence.

14. The allegations pertain to misappropriation of investors' funds by inducing them through false promises and exploiting their trust, which constitutes a grave offence. Therefore, while considering an Application for anticipatory bail and the protection of personal liberty of the Applicant, this Court is equally required to take into account the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation in the facts of the present case.

15. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Hon'ble Supreme Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and held as under:

"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 Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 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."

16. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731, 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.

17. Further, in Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Hon'ble 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.

18. In Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of Haryana and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Hon'ble 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 Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 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."

19. 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/s 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined [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;"

20. 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 Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 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."

21. Upon consideration of the allegations in the FIR and the material placed on record, it transpires that serious accusations involving misappropriation of substantial amounts have been levelled against the present Applicant. From the statement dated 17.06.2025 of one Nitinbhai Govindbhai Panchal @ Moto, who is stated to be an employee of Accused No.2 i.e. the present Applicant - Vishal Sankdasariya, prima facie involvement of the Applicant emerges. It is indicated that the cash received from clients was handed over by the present Applicant along with co- accused Piyush Kukadiya (Accused No.6) to the said Nitinbhai for the purpose of depositing the same through P.M. Angadiya.

22. Moreover, in the statement of Nitinbhai Panchal recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS in connection with the impugned FIR, it is stated that he was earlier working with one Harshadbhai and was subsequently employed at the office of the present Applicant, where a poster of "Travel Academy" was displayed and he was stationed at the reception. He has further stated that Accused No.1 - Mit, the present Applicant - Vishal Sankdasariya Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined (Accused No.2), along with Dharmeshbhai and Piyushbhai (Accused No.6), whenever present, would send him to P.M. Angadiya for delivery of amounts received from clients towards forex dealings. It is further stated that the present Applicant himself used to send him to the angadiya service for depositing such amounts. He has also stated that when accounts were opened by Accused No.5 - Mihirbhai, the present Applicant used to pay commission to him.

23. Further, from the statement of Accused No.1 - Mit Pravinbhai Khokhar dated 06.10.2025, it is revealed that the present Applicant - Vishalkumar Sankdasariya is a distant relative of his mother and had represented himself as being engaged in share market and forex trading business. It is stated that the present Applicant had called him to his office situated at Varachha to learn forex trading, where Piyush Kukadiya imparted such training. Thereafter, he was registered as a sub-broker under Piyush Kukadiya and the present Applicant. It is further stated that Piyush Kukadiya introduced his relative Dharmesh Kukadiya into the said business. It is also stated that, in the year 2022, the present Applicant and Piyush Kukadiya commenced classes under the name "Tradewell Academy", and under the guise of such classes, investors were lured to invest money. He has further stated that commissions were paid to him by the present Applicant and Piyush Kukadiya based on the number of investors brought in and the amount invested by them.

24. It is further stated that, after about one year, the present Applicant, along with his Dubai-based associate Ankur Gopalbhai Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined Patel and one Vishal Limbani, registered themselves with SECURE FX and transferred the accounts of Dharmesh Kukadiya and other investors from the EONE FX platform to SECURE FX. According to the statement, the entire arrangement was managed by the present Applicant along with Piyush Kukadiya, Ankur Patel, and Vishal Limbani. It is further alleged that the trading positions of investors became nil, and upon inquiry, the present Applicant attributed the same to the American elections and further induced investors to invest additional amounts to recover prior losses.

25. From the aforesaid statements of Accused No.1 - Mit Khokhar and the employee of the present Applicant, prima facie, it appears that the present Applicant, along with co-accused persons, were interconnected and involved in the alleged offence of inducing a large number of investors and misappropriating substantial amounts invested by them in good faith. The present case pertains to an economic offence involving significant financial implications. It is well settled that in matters concerning economic offences, the discretion to grant anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in a routine or casual manner. In view of the prima facie material indicating involvement of the Applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary at this stage.

26. 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 Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined 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. 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 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..."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined

27. Further in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. In P. Chidambaram v.

Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24; (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143.] , it was observed as under [See page 57 of (2019) 9 SCC.] :

"Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases

69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the 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...

71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by article 21 of Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the article, i.e., '... except according to a procedure prescribed by law'. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [(1995) 3 SCC 221; 1995 SCC (Cri) 439.] , the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as under : (SCC page 226, paragraph 7) '7.... 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. The Law Commission in its 41st report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed:

"We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised."' In the light of this recommendation, section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a court of session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the 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. (emphasis supplied) Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined

72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under article 21 of the Constitution of India...

...

Economic offences

78. Power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [(1998) 2 SCC 105; 1998 SCC (Cri) 510; 1998 SCC OnLine SC 30.], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

28. Further, the Hon'ble Court in Aditya Sarda, held:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined

19. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2013) 7 SCC 439; (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552; 2013 SCC OnLine SC 452.] , it was observed as under [ See page 449 of (2013) 7 SCC.] :

"34. 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.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

20. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2013) 7 SCC 466; (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575; 2013 SCC OnLine SC 454.] , it was observed as under [ See page 474 of (2013) 7 SCC.] :

"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364; 1987 SCC (Cri) 364; 1987 SCC OnLine SC 170.] this court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under : (SCC page 371, paragraph 5) '5.... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book.

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.'"

29. Furthermore, where the Court is satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish a prima facie case requiring custodial interrogation of the accused, particularly for the purpose of eliciting incriminating material and information within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS ought not to be exercised in a Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8516/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined routine manner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the presence of the Applicant appears necessary for an effective and meaningful investigation and for uncovering the true facts. The larger interests of the public and the State demand that, in cases involving serious economic offences of cheating and large- scale misappropriation, the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS be exercised with due caution and circumspection.

30. From the above, it is evident that while deciding an application for anticipatory bail, the foremost duty of the Court is to consider the seriousness of the offence, the existence of a prima facie case, and the larger interest of society. The applicant is alleged to be involved in a white-collar socio-economic offence, which constitutes a distinct category requiring a different and stricter approach. Such offences have a detrimental impact on the economic and social fabric of the country. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would likely impede the ongoing investigation and deprive the investigating agency of the opportunity to effectively explore relevant facts, circumstances, and leads that may emerge during custodial interrogation.

31. In the result, the present application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

32. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:16:28 IST 2026