Gujarat High Court
Ankur Gopalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 18/12/2025
Pronounced On : 02/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 26094
of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== ANKUR GOPALBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:
MR IH SYED,SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) AND MR PANKAJ R CHHAJED(8667) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI CAV ORDER
1. The applicant, who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Udhna Police, Dist. Surat has preferred this application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023. The FIR came to be registered by way of C.R. No. 11210047251103 of 2025, for the offences Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(2), 61(2), 317(2) of the BNS, 2023, Section 66(D) of the IT Act and Section 3 of the GPID Act, 2003.
2. The applicant is mentioned as accused no. 4 in the FIR. There are other 5 co-accused also named with the applicant in the said FIR.
3. The original complainant Parth Vasantbhai Khadela by way of his FIR has stated that, he came in contact with Meet Khokhar (accused no. 1) before four years at a marriage function and thereafter, they started meeting frequently. In the year 2022, the original complainant had gone to Udhna at his friend Ravibhai Nathani's office, when he had received a call from Meet Khokhar, who had asked him to meet. The original complainant had given Ravibhai's office address to Meet, pursuant to which, he had come to Ravibhai's office. Meet had informed him that, he along with his maternal uncle Vishal Sankdasaria (accused no. 2) and Vishal Sankdasaria's brother-in-law Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Vishal Limbani (accused no. 3) along with his friend Ankur Patel i.e. the present applicant, were doing business in the forex market. Meet had further informed him that, by working as an agent in the said business, he was earning huge commission and, there was huge profit in Forex and Robo trading business. Meet had assured the original complainant that, if he would invest in Forex trading, he i.e. Meet would ensure that, he would earn a profit of around 7% to 8% per month. The original complainant had pleaded ignorance as regards the said business before Meet, to which Meet had assured him that, he should not worry and should only look at his profit. Meet had also told him that he was having a large expert team, which had occasioned huge profits to various investors. They also had an office in Dubai and his employees namely Mihir Shah (accused no. 5) and Piyush Kukadiya (accused no. 6) would provide him information as regards Forex trading. Saying so, Meet had asked for Rs. 2 lakhs towards token amount to be invested in Forex trading, however, the original Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined complainant did not have the said amount. As such, he had given Rs.50000/- and had borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/-
from his friend Ravibhai Nathani, and accordingly had deposited the said amount in an office named R.J. Jewellery, pursuant to which, Meet had prepared a Forex account for trading in Forex market on the server of broker EONE FX bearing I.D. No. 7946224. The original complainant was also made to download an application MT-5, wherein, he saved his id-password. Meet had also told him that, after filling up the id password in his mobile application, he would be able to see the profit and loss as against his investments, however, he was not to enter into any transactions since, it would be Meet's team who would be looking after the said aspect. Meet had further assured him that, he would have to only remit amounts in cash, which would be converted into dollars by him. 3.1 It is further mentioned in the FIR that, the original complainant had thereafter deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in Meet's office namely, Tradeware Academy situated in Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Deepkamal Shopping Complex, Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat as against which, a balance of 6172 dollars was reflected in the MT-5 application. The original complainant has mentioned that, after two months since the profit of 7% to 8% was reflected in his account, he was in need of money and wanted to withdraw 500 dollars, he had called up Meet Khokhar to which, Meet had told him that he would receive a call from P.M. Angadia, Kapodara branch from where, he had to collect the money. He had received a call from the said courier firm and he had gone to the said branch and had collected Rs.40,000/-. He has further mentioned that, after ten days he had once again given Rs.5 lakhs to Meet Khokhar and his account with EONE FX reflected balance of 13,000 dollars. After 2-3 months, the original complainant had again called up Meet as he wanted to withdraw 1200 dollars, and once again he was directed with the same instructions as those which were passed on, on the earlier occasion. Accordingly, he had gone to the said Angadia firm and had collected Rs.1 lakh from them. Thereafter also, the Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined original complainant had withdrawn 3000 dollars at regular intervals amounting to Rs.2,40,000/- 3.2 In the month of March 2023, Meet Khokhar had asked the original complainant that, instead of EONE FX server, his maternal uncle Vishal Sankdasaria was doing business on SECURE FX server from where 12-14% profit was earned. Hence, his account had to be transferred to the SECURE FX server, and accordingly it was done so. It is further mentioned that, thereafter the trade position was blocked in the SECURE FX server, and as such he was advised to deposit more money by Meet in the said account, so as to keep it active, and accordingly, he had given Rs. 27 lakhs to Meet Khokhar to deposit in his account. The original complainant did not have anymore money to deposit, as such, his SECURE FX account balance in Sept 2024 had become zero and his account in his mobile phone was also reflected as being invalid. As such, he had asked Meet Khokhar and Vishal Sankdasaria and their cohorts to return the amounts Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined which he had invested, however, they had not done so and had instead threatened him. Thus, the FIR came to be registered against all accused including the applicant, since all of them had lured the applicant to invest Rs. 39 lakhs and thereafter, they not having returned the said amount.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi and Mr. Pankaj Chhajed, learned advocates for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the State.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. IH Syed at the outset has submitted that, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation if he is granted protection. Mr. Syed has submitted that, as per the FIR the original complainant had first approached Meet, who had opened an account in EONE FX and thereafter, the account was transferred to SECURE FX. The applicant is concerned only with EONE FX, and till the account was Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined maintained with EONE FX, there was no complaint by the original complainant. According to Mr. Syed, it was Meet who had told the complainant to transfer the account from EONE FX to SECURE FX. There is no iota of evidence to show that the applicant was associated with SECURE FX. The applicant is in Dubai since April 2025 i.e. before the FIRs came to be registered. Though it is the say of the complainant that, he had paid the amounts in cash, he is unable to show the source of the said amounts. Mr. Syed has also drawn the attention of the court towards the chart which is submitted, from wherein it can be gathered that, till the account of the original complainant was maintained with EONE FX, profit had accrued, and the original complainant had also encashed the profit to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. However, the balance amount after being transferred to SECURE FX, had shown zero balance. Hence, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that, the application be allowed and anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant. Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
6. Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, at the outset, has raised preliminary and strong objection against the maintainability of the present application submitting that, the address of the applicant, though being mentioned as of Dabhoi, Vadodara in the memo of petition, he has affirmed the said petition at Dubai. The applicant is not within the jurisdiction of this court. If at all he wants to seek pre-arrest bail, he should be present within the jurisdiction of this court today when the petition is being heard by the court. Learned APP has relied upon the judgement in the case of Gurkirat Kalra vs. State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 2586 in support of his such contention.
6.1 Mr. Pandya has further submitted that, the applicant has criminal antecedents and one more FIR has been registered by the DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad on 24.11.2025 for similar offences. So far as the role of the applicant in the offence is concerned, it would not be possible to segregate at this juncture, as it would be Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined matters of evidence during the course of investigation. Prima facie, there is evidence about the applicant and other five co-accused being interconnected and involved in the offence of luring investors and initially showing them profits, and thereafter procuring more investments, usurping their money. He has also the drawn attention of this court towards the fact that, notices under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 were issued to the applicant, however, he had not remained present beforeh te Investigating Officer. The applicant is involved in a serious offence, which is against the nation. The prosecution is already trying to apprehend him through official channels and LOC has also been issued against him. Mr. Pandya has also drawn the attention of the court towards the statements of witnesses who have affirmed the fact that, the applicant and all the co-accused were involved in the commission of the offence, and together they had committed the offence.
6.2 Mr. Pandya has further drawn the attention of the Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined court towards the reply given by SEBI stating that, EONE FX , SECURE FX and the applicant along with other five co-accused were not registered as an intermediary with SEBI. The mobile number which was provided by the applicant in the registration details of EONE FX was false and the address mentioned in the registration details of EONE FX was of Dabhoi, Vadodara, Gujarat. Learned APP has accordingly submitted that, there is much more than it meets the eye so far as the present offence is concerned, and considering his preliminary objection coupled with the incriminating material which has come on record during the course of the investigation which has been conducted till date, the present application should be rejected.
7. On perusing the investigation papers it can be noticed that, one of the prosecution witnesses namely Nitinbhai Govindbhai Panchal, who is an employee of accused no. 2 Vishal Sankdasaria has voluntarily given his statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined before the Third Additional CJM of Surat wherein, he has mentioned as regards the role of the applicant as well as the other co-accused in the alleged business. This court would not like to delve further into the details of the said statement at this juncture.
8. It also appears that, the Reserve Bank of India had declared Meta Trader V as an unauthorized trading platform, which was used by the applicant and the co- accused, having its origin in Cyprus. Further, the Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 10.10.2025, had informed the Investigation Officer of Udhna Police Station about EONE FX and SECURE FX not having been authorized by the RBI as an 'authorized person' to deal in Forex under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and so also META Trader (MT-V) not having been authorized by RBI as an 'authorized person' to deal in Forex under FEMA, 1999. So also, the RBI had stated that, the applicant as well as other co-accused were not authorized as 'authorized persons' to deal in Forex under Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined FEMA, 1999. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had intimated the DCP Zone II, Udhna Police Station, Surat about EONE FX and SECURE FX as well as the applicant and other co-accused not being registered as an intermediary with SEBI. Further, it can also be gauged that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which is the governing body in the United Kingdom akin to SEBI in India, also having stated that SECURE FX Capital Ltd. not being an authorized firm.
9. On further perusing the investigation papers, it appears that, in the registration details of EONE Capital Ltd. the address of the applicant is mentioned as Dabhoi, Vadodara whereas, the mobile number 7043397111 which has been mentioned is false and the same does not belong to the applicant. Rather, the said mobile number was registered in the name of one Francis Parmar Cyril, a resident of Ahmedabad. The IO has also recorded statements of witnesses namely Ravibhai MAnsukhbhai Nathani, Sureshbhai Manubhai Thummar, Chetnaben Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Gohil, Kuldip Lakhabhai Desai, Poonamben Siyani, Amrutlal Rameshbhai Vaghasia, Jatinbhai Laljibhai Savani, Kevalbhai Ashokbhai Koshia, Bholabhai Premjibhai Sutaria, Vipulkumar Bhikhabhai Zadafia, Vishalbhai Gopalbhai Patel, Dhirajbhai Jeevabhai Desai, Dhruvik Dilipbhai Chikadara, Sanjaybhai Keshubhai Nakrani, Chiragbhai Mangdubhai Khuman etc. who all have stated about the investments they had done with the companies of the applicant and the other co-accused and after some time, their respective accounts balance becoming zero. It is pertinent to note that, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has issued LOC against the applicant, and apart from other three antecedents of the applicant of identical nature, a fifth FIR also came to be registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad on 24.11.2025, for identical offences.
10. Learned APP Mr. Pandya has relied upon the judgement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Gurkirat Kalra (supra) Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined wherein the observations of the said High Court in paragraphs no. 7 to 11 read thus:
"7. The Kerala High Court in Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police, (2011) 4 KLT 52 while considering a similar issue has observed as under:-
"17. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under the section and the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. Sub- section (2) of Section 438 provides that when the court makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including those mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) in sub section (2). Clause (iii) thereof is "a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court." The aforesaid provisions would indicate that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to be present in India immediately before the final hearing. If the person concerned is not present in India, the court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court, as contemplated in clause (lil) of subsection (2) Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined of Section 438. A person absent from India cannot leave India. The only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that a person who is not in India or who does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before a court in India. A blanket order cannot be passed to enable a person to wield that order whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter leave the country at his pleasure and flee from justice. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is not intended for such a purpose at all."
8. Further, in Bail Appl. No. 3475 of 2022 Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala decided on 22.06.2022, the Kerala High Court has observed as under:-
"11. However, before considering the merits of this application, it is essential to advert to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the maintainability of this bail application. When the application was filed, petitioner was not in the country. It was alleged that petitioner fled from India after coming to know of the registration of the crime. Noticing the intention of the petitioner to subject himself to the jurisdiction of this Court, an interim order was issued 'not to arrest the petitioner'. On that basis, petitioner returned and is presently in Kerala.
12. Since the question regarding the maintainability of an application for pre-arrest bail while the applicant is residing outside the country, arises quite often, the said issue is considered. On the basis of decisions in Souda Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Beevi v. S.I. of Police 2011 (3) KHC 795) and Shafi S.M. v. State of Kerala 2020 (4) KHC 510 it was argued that the presence of the petitioner outside the country disentitles the applicant to seek pre-arrest bail.
13. A reading of the aforementioned two decisions shows that such an absolute restriction has not been laid down by this Court. On the other hand, all that those two decisions say is that, at-least before the final hearing, the Court must be convinced that the applicant is within the jurisdiction of the Court so that the conditions if any imposed, could be effectively enforced.
14. Section 438 Cr. P.C. does not contain a restrictive mandate that a person residing outside the country cannot file an application for anticipatory bail. It is possible that a person can apprehend arrest even outside the country for an offence that occurred in India. With the advancement in investigative technology and communication, the various agencies of investigation could even be deployed to arrest a person outside the country. An apprehension of arrest can arise even while the applicant is residing outside the country. Thus, when a bona-fide apprehension exists, the statute confers power on such a person to seek protection from arrest. In the absence of any restrictive clauses in SECTION 438, restricting the right of a person residing outside the country from filing an application for pre-arrest bail, court cannot read into the provision such a restriction which the legislature did not incorporate.Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
15. In the decisions in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2020) 5 SCC 1], as well as Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, [(1980) 2 SCC 565], it was held that courts cannot read into section 438 Cr. P.C. a restriction, which the legislature had not thought it fit to impose. In fact, the Court deprecated the practice of an over-generous infusion of constraints into section 438 and even observed that such restrictions can make the provision itself constitutionally vulnerable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed even by a person residing outside the country. However, the only limitation is that prior to the final hearing, the applicant must be inside the country to enable the court to impose and enforce conditions contemplated under the statutory provisions.
16. Section 438 Cr. P.C. has conferred a discretionary right on the higher courts to consider whether a pre-arrest bail ought to be granted under the particular circumstances of the case. The discretion conferred upon the superior courts of law, though not controlled by any specific guidelines, the same is not to be exercised arbitrarily. Law adjures such courts to utilize their trained discretion while considering an application for pre-arrest bail."
XXXXXXXXXX
9. The similar issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2023 (3) KHC 151, wherein it has been observed as under: - Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined XXXXXXXXXX "20. The learned Single Judge has then posed the issue as to whether a person who is not in India can file an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. After considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case 'Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab', [(1980) 2 SCC 565], it was noted that one of the prime conditions in Section 438(1) is that the applicant accused must show that he has reasons to believe that he may be arrested for a non bailable offence and that, the belief that he may be so arrested, must be founded on reasonable grounds and mere fear is not relief, etc. It is thereafter that the learned Single Judge had noted in para 17 of the said decision, that Clause (iii) of Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. empowers the anticipatory bail court to impose conditions that the person shall not leave without the previous permission of the Court. Hence, it was observed that the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to present himself in India, immediately before the final hearing and if he is not present in India, the Court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he should not leave India without the prior permission of the Court, as conceived in Section 438(2) (ii), that, a person absent from India cannot leave India and therefore, the only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that a person, who is not in India or who Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before a court in India.
21. It was also held that a blanket order cannot be passed to enable a person to wield that order whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter, leave the country at his pleasure and flee from justice and that, Section 438 Cr.P.C.
is not intended for such purposes at all.
XXXXXXXXXX
94. Therefore, one of the primary purposes and objectives in the grant of bail in criminal cases is to relieve the accused of imprisonment, if warranted and also to relieve the state of burden of keeping him, pending trial and to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance in the court whenever his presence is required. So, in other words, bail can be conceived as a security for the appearance of the accused on which he is released, pending trial or investigation, etc. So, one of the prime objectives and purposes of grant of ball is to relieve the accused of the imprisonment, if it is justified in terms of the parameters and criteria for grant of bail and thus, to relieve the state of burden of keeping him, pending trial and also to ensure that he co-operates with the investigation and trial. It is precisely for these reasons, that the Legislature in its wisdom has conceived that Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined the bail court in its discretion may consider in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, as to whether to consider the imposition of conditions as in clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C., i.e., the accused person shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required and further that, he/she shall not leave India, without the permission of the court, etc. Therefore, once the anticipatory bail court, after due assessment is of the considered opinion that the discretion could be exercised for granting an order, as per Section 438(1) that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, then it is also the obligation of the court to consider the facts of the particular case and make a call, as to the necessity of imposing appropriate conditions, including those conditions, as envisaged in clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2). Since the cardinal purpose of bail is the security for appearance of the accused persons, on which he is released pending trial or investigation, etc. The courts have an obligation to consider the imposition of appropriate conditions, especially where the accused is abroad at the time of making the application, to consider as to whether conditions as in clauses (i), (iii), etc., are to be imposed.
101. If the Court is satisfied about the parameters and criteria for grant of bail in a given case, where the accused is abroad, then the court, in its discretion, could consider the grant of interim bail order subject to satisfying the strict requirements of Section
438. Once the Court grants such bail order, then it shall be the duty of the Police Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined authorities and law enforcement agencies to honour such bail order granted to an accused, who is abroad, so that he can come to the country and execute the bail bonds, etc. Therein, the court can also stipulate that one of the conditions to regulate the grant of interim bail, which is an ancillary power under Section 438(1), by imposing condition as in clause (i) of Section 438(2) that, the applicant/accused should come back to India and cooperate with the interrogation process within a specified, reasonable time limit, etc. As and when the court thereafter considers the disposal of the main application, it is found that the accused has not complied with the condition to come to India and to co- operate with the Police Investigation, etc., within the stipulated time limit, and the court is convinced about the lack of bona fides, etc., then the court will also have the discretion to dismiss the main application and to consequently order that the order granting interim bail will stand vacated and the main application itself could be dismissed. Such approach in appropriate cases would also be conducive of the legislative intention conceived in the engraftment of the discretion granted to the ball court to impose conditions as in Clauses (i) & (iii) of Section 438(2) to regulate the grant of bail that the accused shall co-operate with the police investigation and shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court concerned. In other words, this option can be a basis for the court to be assured that the bail granted on interim basis is not abused or misused by the accused and to ensure the effectuation of the condition that the accused Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined should be in India, as envisaged in Clause (iii) of Section 438(2)."
XXXXXXXXXX
10. It is a settled proposition of law that 'although an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed even by a person residing outside the country, however, the only limitation is that prior to the final hearing, the applicant must be inside the country to enable the Court to impose and enforce conditions contemplated under the statutory provisions' and admittedly the petitioner has filed the instant petition for anticipatory bail while being at Canada and till date he is not physically present in India, despite the fact that he has made defiance of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed the Court below, whereby he was protected and allowed to join the investigation, which he chosen not to do so for the reasons best known to him, therefore, this Court, considering it to be a sheer reluctance on the part of the petitioner for taking a judicial order in a casual manner, is not inclined to pass any blanket order to enable the petitioner to wield such order, whenever he finds pleasure to visit India and thereafter leaves the country at his pleasure and flee from justice, since, after registration of the FIR on 15.05.2024, the petitioner has approached for pre-arrest bail before the lower Court on 05.02.2025, which shows that intention of the petitioner is just to procure a blanket order to visit India for other purpose(s) and not to join the investigation and moreover, the petitioner has not made any averment in the petition or contention to satisfy this Court to prove his willingness and readiness to join the investigation, even this time. Needless to observe here that a person sitting on Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined an armchair in a foreign country cannot be allowed to take the 'justice delivery system' of a largest democracy of the world in such a casual manner that despite the fact that he has been granted protection by jurisdictional Court below to join the investigation, he chooses not to do so and is again knocking the doors of higher Courts for the same relief, without any justifiable and cogent reason for defying the orders of the Court below, so, such kind of reluctant approach on the part of the petitioner, who is living abroad, will give wrong impact on the society at large, especially the NRI segment, to follow and adhere the procedural laws of the country and moreover, the right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to be exercised by the petitioner, who is living in Canada, in a casual manner to catch any train at his own pleasure, since it will lead to diminish the sanctity of 'justice delivery system' as well as deterrent effect qua adherence and compliance of the court orders.
11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner."
10.1 It is true that, the factual aspect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement is somewhat different than the present case, however, the fact that the applicant being in Dubai and not present before this court on the day of final hearing is overt and obvious. Thus, the aforesaid ratio can be made applicable in the present case. Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court while redressing the issue of victims of digital arrest related to forged documents in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 3 of 2025, has taken note of Digital Arrest Scams, Investment Scams and Part-Time Job Scams. The Hon'ble Apex Court while issuing interim directions to strengthen the hands of the CBI, which shall be the primary agency to investigate cases reporting digital arrest scams, has categorically observed that, other categories of scams would be addressed in subsequent phases of the ongoing investigation, to be monitored and supervised by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. Though learned Senior Counsel Mr. Syed has submitted that, the applicant is ready and willing to co- operate with the investigation and come down to India provided he is protected, in the opinion of this court, such submission cannot be accepted as the same amounts to a conditional and brazen demand. If at all the applicant Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/26094/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined considers himself as a law abiding citizen of this country, it is incumbent upon him to come down to India and cooperate with the investigation. Also, as per his submission, when he is not connected with the other co- accused, there should not be any reservation on his part to return to India and co-operate with the investigation, since he would be in a position to prove his innocence and establish his non-involvement in the offence, which he says, he has not committed.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the applicant being prima facie involved in the offence which is alleged against him and in the light of the observations in the decision of Gurkirat Kalra (supra), this court is of the opinion that discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant, and thus the present application is rejected.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) DIVYA Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Mon Feb 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 09 20:31:55 IST 2026