Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar Babulal Runthala vs State Of Gujarat on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 07/08/2025
Pronounced On : 13/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12255 of 2025
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
ANILKUMAR BABULAL RUNTHALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL P SHAH(3948) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MOHIT A GUPTA(8967) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By filing instant applications under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for
anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.
11191036240236/2024 registered with Navrangpura
Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences
as mentioned in the FIR.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Virat Popat for the
applicant, learned APP Mr. Yurvraj Brahmbhatt for
the respondent - State of Gujarat and learned
advocate, Mr. Mohit Gupta for the original
complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Popat referred to the FIR and
submitted that the so-called incident has occurred
during the period between 01.10.2019 to 31.12.2023,
for which, FIR has been lodged on 14.12.2024 and
thus, there is gross delay in registering the
aforesaid FIR and the complainant has failed to
explain such huge delay. He submitted that in fact,
the applicant and the complainant both are the
partners in one partnership firm and the dispute
pertains to misuse of the amount of the said firm.
He submitted that it is the specific case of the
complainant that entire administration of the
business was being handled by the present applicant
and powers in that regard have been given to him,
however, he has misused the said power. He, however,
submitted that those allegations are not correct and
in support of this submission, he has drawn
attention towards the bank statements produced on
record and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would
make cursory glance upon the said set of documents,
in that event, it is found out that huge volume of
amount has been transferred through number of
transactions to different stack-holders at the
instance of the complainant, however, the said facts
have not been disclosed by the complainant at the
time of registration of the FIR, which suggests
false implication of the applicant in the aforesaid
FIR.
4. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific
case of the complainant that he is the owner of
particular property and he has mortgaged the said
property with the bank and obtained loan of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Rs.14,75,00,000/-, however, the said amount has been
siphoned away by the present applicant by
transferring the said amount in the account of other
creditors, who are not directly or indirectly
connected and associated with the business affairs
of the Company. He submitted that for the property,
which was mortgaged with the bank, sale deed had
been executed in the month of January, 2020, whereas
it is found out from the said document that the said
transaction took place between the complainant and
the original owner in the year 2001-02 and the said
fact is also fortified from the details mentioned in
the sale deed itself, whereas the deed is executed
in the year 2020, therefore, the story put forward
by the complainant itself is not believable and
palatable. He submitted that in fact, before
registration of the FIR, the settlement had already
been arrived at between the parties and they had
executed deed, copy of which is produced on record,
which clearly goes on to show that loan of
Rs.14,5,00,000/- had been taken by the Company, out
of which, Rs.5,25,00,000/- have been utilized by the
applicant and he has taken responsibility to repay
the said amount but there was one clause in the said
deed that as and when property will be sold out
then, the applicant would repay the said amount but
subsequently, the said property is attached by the
authority and, thereafter, the proceedings were
initiated before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal
by the bank and those proceedings are still pending
for adjudication, therefore, unless and until those
proceedings are over, the applicant cannot fulfill
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the conditions mentioned in the said deed in stricto
sensu manner.
5. Learned advocate submitted that if the Hon'ble Court
would make cursory cursory glance upon allegations
and accusation leveled against the applicant, in
that event, it is found out that maximum punishment
that can be imposed at the end of trial, is upto
seven years, therefore in view of the decision of
the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273, in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51, the case of the applicant may be
considered for bail. He submitted that considering
the allegations leveled against the applicant,
custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary and they will keep himself available
during the course of investigation, trial also and
will not flee from justice. He on instructions
submitted that he is ready and willing to abide by
all the conditions including imposition of
conditions while releasing the applicant on
anticipatory bail. It is, therefore urged that
considering the above facts, the applicant may be
granted anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Brahmbhatt
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has
opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the
nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that
in fact, earlier point of time, on the strength of
the undertaking given by the applicant, the matter
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
had been amicably settled between the parties,
however subsequently, since the applicant has not
adhered with the said terms and conditions mentioned
in the deed in stricto sensu, therefore, the
complainant had filed an application before the
concerned Police Station, wherein detailed inquiry
was carried out and element of criminality had been
found out by the police officer concerned,
therefore, the opinion was given to register the
complaint and pursuant thereto, the aforesaid FIR
has been lodged and investigation has been carried
out and during the course of investigation,
particular facts had come on surface that the
complainant herein had purchased one property in the
year 2001 and at that relevant point of time, the
property was given to the complainant by the
original owner as the complainant had entered into
business relationship with the applicant herein and
at the instance of the applicant, the complainant
was ready and agreeable to mortgage the said
property for the purose of obtaining loan from the
bank and at that point of time, as per the
conditions of the bank, the sale deed of the
document is required to be obtained as the property
was registered under the provision of the
Cooperative Act, therefore earlier, share
certificate as well as allotment letter were issued
in favour of the complainant but with a sole intent
to fulfill the said requirement, subsequently the
sale deed had been executed and the said property
had been mortgaged.
7. Learned APP submitted that in fact, if the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Court would make cursory glance upon the charge and
accusation leveled against the applicant, in that
event, it is found out that it is the specific case
of the complainant that the complainant is holding
20% share in the Company and other partners are
holding 51% share, whereas the applicant and others
are holding 3.31% share each in the Company but as
the applicant is expert in the said subject and
running the business since last many years,
administration and the affairs of the business had
been handled by the applicant and at the request of
the applicant, the complainant and other partners
had signed upon certain blank papers (letter-head of
the Company) with sole intent to ease the commercial
transaction of the Company, the applicant herein has
misused the trust put upon him by the complainant
and other partners and the said fact is also
fortified from the transaction done by him. He
submitted that the loan amount had come in the
account of the Company on 1st day of month and on 7th
day of month, entire amount has been siphoned away
by the applicant by transferring the fund to
different stack-holders and during the course of
investigation, the statements of those persons have
been recorded, wherein they have stated in a very
categorically terms that they are not directly or
indirect connected and/or associated with the
business transaction of the Company and out of them,
some persons are not aware about the said
transaction, which clearly goes on to show that
there was bad intention on the part of the applicant
since beginning and as per well designed plan, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
applicant had acted in a systemic manner to dupe the
complainant and other partners. He, therefore,
submitted that the documents collected so far
clearly goes on to show the direct involvement of
the applicant in the commission of crime and for the
purpose of further investigation, the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required,
therefore, the discretion in favour of the applicant
may not be exercised as there is prima facie case
made out against the applicant. It is, therefore,
urged that the present application may be rejected.
8. Learned advocate, Mr. Gupta appearing for the
original complainant has also opposed the present
application contending that prima facie involvement
of the applicant in the commission of crime is found
out, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for
any relief as prayed for. He referred to the
affidavit in reply filed by the complainant and
submitted that a well designed systemic plan has
been orchestrated by the applicant with a sole
intent to siphon-off huge volume of amount of the
Company with a sole intent to dupe the complainant
and other partners. He further submitted that in
fact, the applicant is also involved in another
offence GST fraud of Rs.175 crores registered at
Mumbai and in connection with the said offence, the
applicant was arrested and thus above fact clearly
goes on to show the criminal mind of the applicant.
He further submitted that in fact, almost all the
arguments have been canvassed by learned APP,
therefore, he is not repeating the same. It is,
therefore, urged that the present application may
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
not be entertained as the custodial interrogation of
the applicant is needed.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is
equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on
the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the
antecedents of the applicants including the fact as
to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the
applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the
accusation has been made with the object of injuring
or humiliating the applicants by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an
elaborate examination of evidence and detailed
reasons touching the merit of the case, which may
prejudice the accused, should be avoided.
10. It is required to be noted that normal procedure
prescribed for curtailing the right to life &
liberty, is that the investigating officer can
arrest the accused even without warrant. No doubt
this Court has extraordinary power to protect an
innocent person. However, this power has to be
exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
11. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the investigation to secure not only the presence
of the accused, but several other purposes. Power
under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is an
extraordinary power and the same has to be
exercise sparingly in appropriate and fit case.
This privilege should be extended only in
exceptional cases. It is a judicial discretion
conferred upon the court, and it is to be properly
exercised after application of mind as to the
nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility
of the applicant fleeing from justice and other
factors to decide whether it is a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail. While considering the
case for grant of anticipatory bail, balance has
to be struck between two factors, namely, no
prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and
full investigation, and there should be prevention
of harassment and humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused. The court is required to
evaluate the entire available material against the
accused carefully. The role of the accused is also
to be comprehended.
12. It is well settled that an application preferred for
anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be
granted in exception cases. The parameters and
considerations governing the grant of anticipatory
bail have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would
like to rely upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the
CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in
2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s
Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC
4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the
introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to
safeguard the individual's personal liberty
and to protect him from the possibility of
being humiliated and from being subjected to
unnecessary police custody. However, the
court must also keep in view that a criminal
offence is not just an offence against an
individual rather the larger societal
interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate
balance is required to be established between
the two rights - safeguarding the personal
liberty of an individual and the societal
interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of
procedure of the investigation to secure not
only the presence of the accused but several
other purposes. There may be circumstances in
which the accused may provide information
leading to discovery of material facts and
relevant information. Grant of anticipatory
bail may hamper the investigation. It may
frustrate the investigating agency in
interrogating the accused and in collecting
the useful information and also materials
which might have been concealed. Success in
such interrogation would elude if the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
knows that he is protected by the order of
the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a
balance between the individual's right to
personal freedom and the right of the
investigating agency to interrogate the
accused as to the material so far collected
and to collect more information which may
lead to recovery of relevant information. In
this view, it cannot be said that refusal to
grant anticipatory bail would amount to
denial of the rights conferred upon the
appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438
CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be
exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as
a different class as they affect the economic
fabric of the society. The privilege of the
pre-arrest bail should be granted only in
exceptional cases. The judicial discretion
conferred upon the court has to be properly
exercised after application of mind as to the
nature and gravity of the accusation;
possibility of the applicant fleeing justice
and other factors to decide whether it is a
fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent
interferes in the sphere of investigation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
an offence and hence, the court must be
circumspect while exercising such power for
grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC
is to be invoked only in exceptional cases
where the case alleged is frivolous or
groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be
granted as a matter of rule and it has to be
granted only when the court is convinced that
exceptional circumstances exist to resort to
that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations
and stage of investigations, held
investigating agency must be given sufficient
freedom in process of investigation.
Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail
as the same would hamper the investigation".
13. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State
of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.21, observed
as under:-
"21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While it
serves as a crucial tool to prevent the
misuse of the power of arrest and protects
innocent individuals from harassment, it also
presents challenges in maintaining a delicate
balance between individual rights and the
interests of justice. The tight rope we must
walk lies in striking a balance between
safeguarding individual rights and protecting
public interest. While the right to liberty
and presumption of innocence are vital, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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."
14. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as
this application has been preferred under the
provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory
bail, I court would like to refer the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,,
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, more particularly
Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as under :-
"14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons that the purpose of incorporating
Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize
the importance of personal liberty and
freedom in a free and democratic country.
When we carefully analyze this section, the
wisdom of the legislature becomes quite
evident and clear that the legislature was
keen to ensure respect for the personal
liberty and also pressed in service the age-
old principle that an individual is presumed
to be innocent till he is found guilty by the
court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with
the anticipatory bail: The nature and gravity
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
of the accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made; the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether
the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in
respect of any cognizable offence; The
possibility of the applicant to flee from
justice; The possibility of the accused's
likelihood to repeat similar or the other
offences. Whereas the accusation have been
made only with the object to injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or
her. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people. The
courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully.
The court must also clearly comprehend the
exact role of the accused in the case."
15. Now in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, if
the facts of the present case are examined, in that
event, it is found out that for the purpose of
increasing the growth of the Company, the applicant,
who is managing the affairs of the Company as CEO,
asked the complainant to obtain loan from the bank
and pursuant thereto, the property owned by the
complainant was mortgaged with the bank and loan of
Rs.14,75,00,000/- has been obtained by the
complainant, which was disbursed in the account of
the Company, however in the meantime, the applicant
has obtained certain signature of the blank letter-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
head of the Company and kept the ID and Password of
the account and, thereafter instead of using the
said amount for the growth of the Company, the
applicant has used the said amount for his personal
benefits and thereby siphoned-off the amount of the
Company and, thereafter, stopped paying
installments, therefore, criminal proceeding was
instituted against him, wherein settlement was
arrived at on the assurance given by the applicant
that he will clear the outstanding dues of the Bank,
however despite giving assurance, he has not made
the payment and thereby committed fraud and criminal
breach of trust with the complainant, which resulted
into registration of the aforesaid FIR.
16. I have considered the allegations and accusation
leveled against the applicant in the FIR and also
considered the role attributed to him, which clearly
goes on to show that specific name and role is
clearly spelt out as to how the applicant has duped
the complainant and other partners after winning
their trust. It has also come to the notice of the
concerned Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation that after availing loan from the
bank, with the help of ID & Passport, which were
kept in his possession, the applicant has
transferred the said funds to other persons, who are
at all not directly or indirectly connected and/or
associated with the business of the Company and when
the statements of those persons were recorded, it is
found out that they are not aware about the said
transaction. They have stated in a categorical terms
that they are poor persons and they have given their
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
accounts to their friends for its use on monthly
payment basis of Rs.10,000/-. Not only that, when
the inquiry was made in relation to the mobile
number, which was liked to the accounts of those
persons, the said person was not found available at
his residence since long. Thus all above links
clearly goes on to suggest about the occurrence of
the offence, wherein the active involvement of the
applicant is found out from the investigation papers
gathered so far.
17. I have also considered the Memorandum of
Understanding executed between the parties, copy of
which is produced on record at Page No.81 of the
compilation, which was executed pursuant to the
settlement arrived at between the parties when the
complainant had given an application before the
concerned Police Station against the applicant after
having come to know about the fraud committed by the
applicant with them. However from the facts narrated
hereinabove, it is found out that right from the
beginning, the intention of the applicant was not
bonafide and it was his intention cheat the
complainant by siphoning off huge volume of amount
from the Company, which he has done and the said
fact is also fortified from the investigation papers
collected so far. Therefore, the applicant is not
entitled for any relief as prayed for.
18. Over and above that, not only this, the applicant is
also involved in huge GST scam of Rs.175 Crores
registered at Mumbai, wherein the applicant has been
arrested by the concerned police and thus, the
applicant is having antecedent, that too, of huge
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
volume of amount, which clearly goes on to show his
tendency to involve in such type of offence.
19. Though the contention has been made by learned
advocate for the applicant contending that the
sentence for the alleged offences is maximum upto
seven years, therefore, the case of the applicant
falls under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), it is to be
noted that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and
though it was held that bail is said to be a rule,
it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said
that anticipatory bail is the rule and the
question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case and the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or
protection to the accused in serious cases, which
may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper
the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the
evidence. It is also required to be noted that in
view of aforesaid decision as well as other
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and
when warrant of arrest is issued, in that event,
the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power and it is not that this will
not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-
arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
interest of justice but here in the present case,
as stated above, the applicant is evading his
arrest at the hands of the concerned Investigating
Officer and keeping himself absconding, therefore,
such conduct of the applicant in the light of the
aforesaid circumstances, leaves no hesitation for
me to hold he is not entitled to seek the benefit
of pre-arrest bail.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1529 held that merely because
custodial interrogation was not required by itself
could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing
the anticipatory bail application is to consider is
the prima facie case against the accused. The
relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that
charge-sheet has already been filed. It will
be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require
Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation
for the purpose of further investigation. Be
that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial
interrogation, we are satisfied that the High
Court ought not to have granted discretionary
relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing
with a matter wherein the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
complainant (appellant herein) has come
before this Court praying that the
anticipatory bail granted by the High Court
to the accused should be cancelled. To put it
in other words, the complainant says that the
High Court wrongly exercised its discretion
while granting anticipatory bail to the
accused in a very serious crime like POCSO
and, therefore, the order passed by the High
Court granting anticipatory bail to the
accused should be quashed and set aside. In
many anticipatory bail matters, we have
noticed one common argument being canvassed
that no custodial interrogation is required
and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be
granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for
custodial interrogation is made out by the
prosecution, then that alone would be a good
ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant
aspects to be considered along with other
grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in
which the custodial interrogation of the
accused may not be required, but that does
not mean that the prima facie case against
the accused should be ignored or overlooked
and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court
hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
up against the accused. Thereafter, the
nature of the offence should be looked into
along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the
grounds to decline custodial interrogation.
However, even if custodial interrogation is
not required or necessitated, by itself,
cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory
bail."
21. Now coming back to the case on hand, it is found
out from the allegations levelled in the FIR and
the materials placed on record that very serious
allegations of 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.
22. At this stage, it may be noted that as held in
catena of decisions, the economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail.
The economic offences having deep-rooted
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
repercussions on the development of the country as
a whole. In this regard, I would like to place
reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 439, in case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 466, in case of Gautam Kundu Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj
Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region,
reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1, in case of State of
Bihar & Anr., Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai,
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. The Supreme Court
taking a serious note with regard to the economic
offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case
of in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal & Anr., reported in (1987) 2 SCC
364 as under:-
"5. The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of
the State are not brought to books. A
murder may be committed in the heat of
moment upon passions being aroused. An
economic offence is committed with cool
calculation and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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..."
23. Over and above that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reaffirmed that economic offences involving large-
scale fraud and public fund siphoning require a
distinct and rigorous approach to bail. Such
offences are considered grave, given their wide-
ranging impact on the financial health of the
country and public trust in financial systems.
24. As noted earlier, there is economic offence
affecting the economy of the country. In this
regard, a useful reference can be made to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain,
reported in (1998) 2 SCC 105, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that in economic offence,
the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The relevant observation reads as under:-
"81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of
investigation may frustrate the
investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful
information and also the materials which
might have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
knows that he is protected by the order of
the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Having regard to the
materials said to have been collected by
the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and
considering the stage of the investigation,
we are of the view that it is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail."
25. It is required to be noted at this stage that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judicial
pronouncements have observed that a court may
reject an anticipatory bail application when
custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for a
thorough investigation, even if the applicant
argues that such interrogation is not required.
Further, while custodial interrogation can be a
factor in denying anticipatory bail, it is not the
sole determinant, and courts will also consider
other factors related to the severity of the
offense and the need for a comprehensive
investigation.
26. Thus while taking into consideration the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) as also ratio
laid down in other decisions as stated above, I have
gone through the contents of the FIR, which is
placed on record and also considered the affidavit
of the investigating officer filed before the
learned Judge concerned opposing the bail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
application preferred by the applicants. Upon going
through the contents of the FIR, it appears that
prima facie case is made out against the applicants
and material collected so far suggests the
involvement of the applicant in the commission of
crime.
27. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case, as
have been analyzed hereinabove, the applicant has
failed to make out a special case for exercise of
power to grant bail and considering the facts and
parameters, necessary to be considered for
adjudication of anticipatory bail, this Court does
not find any exceptional ground to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
BNSS to grant anticipatory bail. More so,
investigation is still going on in the present case.
It is settled proposition of law that power
exercisable under Section 482 BNSS, is somewhat
discretionary in character and it is to be exercised
with caution in exceptional cases.
28. Hence, the present application seeking for
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. However, it is
clarified that in view of submission of learned
advocate for the applicant emphasizing on the
decision of Arnesh Kumar (supra) contending that
maximum punishment for the alleged offence is upto
seven years, it is expected from the concerned
Investigating Officer to following the guidelines
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while carrying out
investigation in the present offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12255/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
29. Needless to say that observations and findings made
hereinabove are limited to the decision of these
pre-arrest bail applications, and shall not
influence any other proceedings arise from impugned
FIR.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
