Gujarat High Court
Mira Prakashchandra Purohit vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2463
of 2025
==========================================================
MIRA PRAKASHCHANDRA PUROHIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHINTAN U PATEL(7879) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the
respective respondents.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the
applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being
I-C.R. No.08 of 2019 registered CID Crime, Gandhinagar.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the First Informant, a
victim in the case, noticed the opening of a branch of Adarsh
Co. Op. Society Ltd. in the year 2013 near his business
premises. Upon inquiry, he was introduced to various
investment schemes that promised increased returns at
maturity, along with flexible interest withdrawals. Convinced
by these assurances, he became an agent of the society,
investing personally along with his family and securing
additional investments from others, totaling ₹63 lakh. In63 lakh. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
2018, when he attempted to withdraw funds, the branch
manager, Narendrasinh Kushwah, claimed that the funds
would be disbursed from the head office but continued to give
false assurances. Seeking clarity, the informant visited the
Ahmedabad branch and met the society's Managing Directors,
Rahul Modi and Mukesh Modi, only to discover that the
society had engaged in fraudulent activities. The society
allegedly collected substantial investments under false
pretenses and failed to return funds upon maturity, leading to
the registration of the FIR for cheating and fraud.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant has no involvement in the alleged offence and has
been falsely implicated. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the
entire case has been fabricated with the intention of falsely
implicating the applicant. It is submitted that the present
applicant is a lady and is not directly connected to the alleged
offense. Nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from
her. Moreover, the police approached her belatedly, and the
charge sheet has already been filed against the co-accused.
Since the co-accused have been released on regular bail, the
applicant seeks the benefit of parity and requests that similar
relief be granted to her. There is no risk of absconding, and
the nature of the allegations does not warrant custodial
interrogation at this stage. The applicant is available for
investigation and will not evade justice. In view of the above,
the applicant prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has
opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is
directly involved in the offense. It is submitted that the
present applicant is involved in illegal activities. It is
submitted that taking into consideration the conduct of the
present applicant over the last four years, a warrant under
Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against her. The
coordinate Bench of this Court has also taken note of the
applicant's conduct and passed an order accordingly. Even
though the applicant has furnished an address in the cause
title of the present application, as well as in the charge sheet
and complaint, she is not residing at the given address in
Sirohi, Rajasthan. When the police visited the address and
recorded statements from neighbors, they stated that no one
by this name had been residing there for the past five years.
The police have also taken a photograph of the applicant's
closed house for the Court's perusal. Considering the
applicant's conduct and the bar under Section 17(2) of the
GPID Act (Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act), it
is requested that the present application be dismissed.
Further, it is submitted that the present applicant was
working as a Managing Director of the said cooperative
society, which has 75 branches across the state. By
introducing various schemes such as fixed deposits, recurring
deposits, daily investments, and savings schemes, the society
has collected ₹63 lakh. In540 crore from numerous members. In this
regard, separate offenses have been registered in addition to
those in Himmatnagar, Junagadh, Jaipur, and Rajasthan. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
applicant has a history of past antecedents. If released on bail,
it would definitely have an adverse effect on the prosecution's
case. Therefore, it is requested that the present application be
dismissed.
6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the
accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it
appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to
be considered. So far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
the well settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for
bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses and threat to the complainant of the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his
abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations are required to be considered.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the evidence on record, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
appears that the First Informant is the victim, in 2013, he
noticed the opening of a branch of Adarsh Co-Operative
Society Limited in a complex opposite his business premises.
He visited the branch to understand the various investment
schemes being offered. The society presented lucrative
schemes and assured him that any investment made would
grow by the maturity date, as per the scheme's terms, and
that investors could withdraw interest as needed. After
understanding the schemes, the First Informant became an
agent of the society. He, along with his family members,
invested in different schemes and also brought in additional
investments from others as an agent, amounting to a total of
₹63 lakh. In63 lakh. In 2018, when the First Informant needed funds, he
visited the society's office to withdraw his money. However, the
manager, Narendrasinh Kushwah, informed him that the
funds would be received from the head office and continued to
give false assurances. Consequently, the First Informant
visited the Ahmedabad branch and met with the Managing
Directors, Rahul Modi and Mukesh Modi, where he discovered
the fraudulent activities and deception. The other clients had
also invested through the First Informant, bringing the total
invested amount to ₹63 lakh. In63 lakh. The society committed fraud
and cheating by collecting money under the guise of
investment but failing to return it upon maturity.
8. It is worth to mention that a warrant under Section 70 of
the Cr.P.C. was issued against the present applicant on 21st
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
July 2022, and since then, she has remained out of reach and
absconding. While there is no bar on entertaining an
application under Section 482 of the BNSS or a pre-arrest bail
application even when a warrant is issued, the Court must
consider the conduct of the applicant before exercising its
discretion. The address furnished by the applicant in the
present application was verified by the investigating agency as
per the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Upon
visiting the specified location in Sirohi, Rajasthan, it was
found that the applicant has not been residing there for the
past five years and has attempted to mislead the Court and
the proceedings.
9. Further, the investigation papers clearly reveal that the
present applicant has remained absconding despite issuance
of warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.PC and therefore, in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784;
Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730;
Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC
282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, in the case of Srikant Upadhyay vs
The State Of Bihar, reporrted in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282no
case is made out to grant the anticipatory bail.
10. Considering the applicant's conduct along with the bar
under Section 17(2) of the GPID Act, the case against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
applicant must be examined on its merits. The applicant, as
the Managing Director of Adarsh Cooperative Credit Society
Ltd., which operates 75 branches across the State, was
actively involved in its day-to-day business. As a director, she
aided and abetted the offense by receiving ₹540 crore540 crore in
public investments. Out of this amount, an investigation has
revealed that ₹540 crore212.14 crore was diverted and invested in
companies linked to the applicant and her relatives. The
evidence supporting this has been collected during the
investigation. Furthermore, the applicant has remained out of
reach for the past seven years, despite efforts to locate her
using technical sources and through the ICJS Portal.
Therefore, taking into consideration of the applicant's conduct,
her involvement in the offense, and the total misappropriated
amount of ₹540 crore5,34,10,344, custodial interrogation is necessary.
If the applicant is released on bail, there is a strong possibility
that she may abscond from trial and tamper with the
evidence.
11. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Santosh Karnani, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 and
Sumitha Pradeep vs Arun Kumar C.K, reported in 2022 SCC
Online (SC) 1529, wherein the Court held that Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. Therefore, I am of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
considered view that this is not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction as it is nothing but to exercise to jurisdiction
under Section 70(2) of the CrPC in favour of the applicant.
12. Regarding the ground of parity, as argued by the learned
advocate for the applicant, that the co-accused has been
released on bail, it is noted that the co-accused was granted
regular bail due to their cooperation with the investigation.
Therefore, the question of parity does not arise in this case, in
view of the law of parity laid down in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod
vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, reported in AIR 2021 SC
2011.
13. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that the applicant is a lady accused, and therefore, she should
be considered for relief. However, this argument is not
acceptable on two grounds, as discussed above. Considering
her conduct and the bar under Section 17(2) of the GPID Act,
the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought. Moreover,
considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, she
is involved in an economic offense carried out in a calculated
manner with the intent to gain profit. In the present era,
educated and well-placed women in society actively participate
in commercial ventures and enterprises, and whether
intentionally or inadvertently, some engage in illegal activities.
Therefore, the Court must exercise its discretion judiciously
and prudently while granting bail. In this regard, reference is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
made to Saumya Chaurasiya vs. ED, reported in (2024) 6 SCC
14. Considering the applicant's involvement, this is not a
case where discretion should be exercised in his favor. His
actions were motivated purely by personal gain, disregarding
the larger public interest. If released on bail, there is a strong
possibility that he may tamper with evidence and re-engage in
similar illegal activities.
15. The accused is suspected of aiding in the crime, and a
detailed interrogation of their bank account transactions is
needed. The applicant is accused of a large-scale fraud, and
custodial interrogation is necessary. The government has
opposed granting anticipatory bail, stating it could delay the
investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
Releasing the applicant would prevent the investigating agency
from properly questioning them while in custody.
16. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is
necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and
involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the
Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest
bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The
alleged offence is in nature of white collar and socioeconomic
offence, this Court is conscious with the safeguards provided
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
under Section 438 of the CrPC and concept of the personal
liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the
present offence is committed very smartly which is not just an
offence against any individual rather the largest societal
interest and public welfare is involved at and in such
circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be
maintained between two rights one against the personal
liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the
process of investigation and intended to secure several
purposes. In which the accused may provide information,
during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant
information.
17. In such circumstances, when investigation is in
preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper
the investigation and to collect the material in the more
information, and find out the involvements of another person
custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in
mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported
in 1997 (7) SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B.
reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
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
the materials which might have been concealed. Success in
such interrogation would elude if the accused 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 prearrest 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
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"
18. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State
of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under:
19. 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, italso presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights
and the interests of justice.
The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance
between safeguarding individual rights and protecting
public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption
of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the
gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need
for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in
weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of
each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just
outcome."
19. Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1
SCC 694. Herein, I have gone through the material available
against the accused very carefully and it appears that herein,
no complaint has been made with view to humiliating or
tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in Jai
Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in
(2012) 4 SCC 379, Honourable Supreme Court pleased to
hold:
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offenceare required to be satisfied and further while
granting such relief, the court must record the reasons
therefore. Anticipatorybail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of
the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty."
20. The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not
be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or
personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any
such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say
that order of pre arrest bail is not a passport to the
commission of trial nor a shield against any serious
accusation, which adversely affects the society as the alleged
involvement of lage amount is yet to be traced out and amount
has been siphoned and so far as it is an economic offence and
there is involvement of money, applicant required to be visited
class apart. In this regard the Court deems it fit to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
Gujrat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in (1987) 2 SCC
364, the Court in para 5 has observed that:
"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 with- out 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."
21. This Court is of the considered view that if the present
accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously
adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative
investigation as applicant is having trained legal mind and he
will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution and
here two accused are still out of reach, who are directly
connected with the present accused and other co-accused.
22. In the above facts and circumstances and considering
the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court
has absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with
such an order before he is interrogated by the Police, it would
greatly harm the investigation and would impede the
prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the
conspiracy.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2463/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2025
undefined
23. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge,
prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of
tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and
proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and
accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
