Gujarat High Court
Madhav Priya Swami @ M.P. Swami vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/06/2025
Pronounced On : 09/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4725
of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4727 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MADHAV PRIYA SWAMI @ M.P. SWAMI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESHKUMAR A RATANPARA(7260) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and Mr.
Yogeshkumar A. Ratanpara waives service of notice of rule for
and on behalf of the original complainant.
2. Since the issues involved in both the captioned applications
are interconnected, those were heard analogously and are being
disposed by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the Criminal Misc. Application
No.4725 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the
applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11201002240046 of 2024
registered with Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, Ahmedabad for
the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
5. The gist of the allegations made in the FIR is that the
applicants herein, along with the other co-accused, hatched a
criminal conspiracy, and as a part of the said conspiracy,
approached the complainant and induced the complainant that if
he will make investment in the land situated at Mathasuliya
village which is approximately about 500 vigha, he will get a
good profit from the same as they want to build a huge temple
like Poicha Swami Narayan upon the said land, and thereby, to
become financially strong, illegally took a huge amount of
Rs.1,76,00,000/- from the complainant by creating false and
fabricated agreement to sell of the original owners/agriculturists,
and out of the said amount, only an amount of Rs.21,00,000/-
was returned back, and rest of the amount of Rs.1,55,00,-000/-
was not repaid by the accused persons, and thereby committed
the offence of cheating and breach of trust with the complainant.
The complainant was also threatened to face dire consequences
if he makes any demand of returning back the said money. Not
only that, the accused persons have also swindled the other
persons and thereby committed a huge financial scandal. With
this sort of allegations, the present FIR has been registered.
6. Thus, apprehending their arrest pursuant to the registration
of the aforesaid FIR, the applicants preferred anticipatory bail
before the trial court, however, the trial court has not entertained
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the said applications and rejected the same.
7. Being aggrieved, the applicants are here before this Court
with the present applications.
8. Learned advocate Mr. A.S. Timbalia appearing for the
applicants submits that the allegations made in the FIR are of
such a nature, for which, custodial interrogation of the applicants
at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the
applicants will keep themselves available during the course of
investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee
from justice. He further submits that total eight persons have
been arraigned as accused in the FIR, wherein the present
applicants have been shown as accused Nos.1 and 2. Learned
advocate Mr. Timbalia also submits that the incident in question
took place during the period between 01.12.2023 and
12.03.2024, for which, the FIR came to be lodged on 20.09.2024,
and as such, there is a gross delay of almost six months in
registering the FIR, without there being any explanation worth
the name about such delay in registering the FIR. He further
submits that the FIR came to be lodged against in all eight
persons, out of which, except the present applicants, rest of the
accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Moreover,
all the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate.
Learned advocate Mr. Timbalia submits that even otherwise the
applicants herein are also the victim s and they have been made
a scapegoat in the present offence. Though, they have not
received a single penny or any monetary benefit out of the
transaction in question, they have already paid Rs.21,00,000/- to
the complainant, and are also ready and willing to pay the
remaining amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/-, and are also shown their
willingness to file undertaking to that effect. Even, the applicants
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
tried to contact the complainant to settle the dispute, however,
the complainant did not pay any heed and was demanding very
exorbitant amount from the applicants, and therefore, the
settlement could not have been taken place. Moreover, the
applicants herein are priest by profession and a respected person
in the Society. Moreover, except the applicants herein, all the
accused persons have already been released on regular bail by
the trial court. To buttress his submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Timbalia has relied upon the decision in the case of P. Krishna
Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Special Leave
Pettiion (Cri.) No.7532 of 2025, decided on 16.05.2025.
9. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate
Mr. Timbalia for the applicants prays that there being merit in the
present application, the same be allowed and the applicants be
released on anticipatory bail.
10. On the other hand, the present application has been
vehemently opposed by the learned APP. Learned APP submits
that the present applicants have been named in the FIR along
with their specific role. Learned APP submits that the applicants
herein are not as innocent as projected by their learned
advocate. They are the kingpin of the entire episode, at whose
instance, the entire plan has been organized. He further submits
that there are in all twenty applications of similar nature have
been given against the applicants, out of which, seven to eights
FIRs have been registered against them, wherein in some of the
FIRs, they have got the bail, and as such, the applicants seem to
be habitual in committing such kind of offence, and by adopting
the same modus operandi they have duped number of gullible
persons and thereby usurp their hard-earned money. Learned
APP further submits that initially, the FIR came to be lodged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
under the different penal provisions, however, during the course
of investigation, on the basis of certain materials collected by the
investigating officer, it filed a report before the learned
Magistrate for addition of Section 3 of the G.P.I.D Act, which was
allowed by the learned Magistrate, and therefore, Section 3 of the
G.P.I.D Act came to be incorporated, and as such, there is a bar
under Section 17(2) of the G.P.I.D Act in granting anticipatory bail
by the Designated Court to the accused charged with the offence
under the said Act.
11. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays
that there being no merit in the present applications, the same
be rejected.
12. This application has also been vehemently opposed by
learned advocate Mr.Yogeshkumar Ratanpara appearing for the
original complainant. He submits that almost all the points have
been covered by the learned APP and he is adopting all the
arguments canvassed by the learned APP, and prays not to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicants.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
14. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused. Though at the stage of granting bail execution and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Hence, custodial
interrogation is required.
15. It appears from the record that there is a huge scam of
crores of rupees alleged to have been committed by the
present applicants along with the other co-accused under the
guise of giving huge profit upon investment being made in
their scheme, and thereby the complainant has been duped
with an amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/-. It also appears from the
record that the applicants herein are saints of Swami Narayan
sect, and over and above the present FIR, other seven to eight
FIRs have also been registered against them levelling similar
kind of allegations by some other individuals, and in some of
the FIRs, referred to above, they have obtained bail. Not only
the complainant, the applicants have also duped number of
other persons by adopting the same modus operandi, and the
statements of those persons have also been recorded by the
investigator, wherein they have clearly stated they have been
duped by the applicants in the same manner.
16. It also appears from the record that to achieve their
illegitimate goal, the applicants, in collusion with the other co-
accused, have created a false and fabricated agreement to sell
in the name of the farmers, on the basis of which, they have
deceived the complainant, and relying upon such false and
fabricated documents, the complainant invested such a huge
amount. It is not a coincident that six to seven similar kind of
FIRs have been registered against the applicants, but is
indicating of the fact that the applicants herein have played
with the sentiments of the people at large, and many ignorant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
and innocent people are being cheated in the name of
spirituality and religion. Thus, from the materials collected so
far and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties,
as well as the conduct of the applicants being brought on
record, it can be said that there appears to be the elements of
mens rea on the part of the applicants from the very inception
to deceive the complainant in order to gain some monetary
benefits for their own. The applicants are committing such type
of offences one after another, despite FIRs having been
registered against them, and are being released on bail
pursuant thereto, which is also indicative of the fact that they
are taking the law for granted. Further, the offence with which
the applicants are charged with is an economic offence and is
against the interest of the society. Thus, looking to the totality
of the facts and circumstances which are brought to the notice
of this Court along with all material particulars as well as the
mode and manner in which the complainant has been duped, I
am of the view that the contentions raised by the counsel for
the applicants are not so meritorious, on the basis of which,
the applicants can be awarded with any respite.
17. Moreover, the applicants have also been charged with
the offence under the provisions of the G.P.I.D Act, and the
exercise of power under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023
(Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) is inapplicable in the offences
under the provisions of the G.P.I.D. Act. In this regard let me
refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Geetaben Manishkumar Shah vs. State of Gujarat, Special
Criminal Application No.212 of 2018, decided on 15.03.2028,
wherein in Para-44, this Court has observed as under;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
"44. The entire argument inviting me to specifically
decide whether a court of a Designated Judge, for a
certain purpose, is a court of Magistrate or a court of
Session revolves round a mistaken belief that a
Designated Judge has to be one or the other, and must fit
in the slot of a Magistrate or a Court of Session. Such an
approach would strangulate the functioning of the court
and must be eschewed. Shorn of all embellishment, the
court of a Designated Judge is a court of original criminal
jurisdiction. As a court of original criminal jurisdiction in
order to make it functionally oriented some powers were
conferred by the statute setting up the court. Except
those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has
to function as a court of original criminal jurisdiction not
being hide bound by the terminological status description
of Magistrate or a Court of Session. Under the Code, it will
enjoy all powers which a court of original criminal
jurisdiction enjoys save and except the ones specifically
denied. Without causing any violence to the words of
section 17(2) of the Act, 2003, the plain reading of the
same would indicate that the Court of the original
criminal jurisdiction has been denuded of the power to
grant anticipatory bail to an accused under section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. To put it in other words, the power to grant
anticipatory bail appears to have been specifically denied
to the court of the original criminal jurisdiction."
18. It goes without saying that the alleged offence of
misappropriating crores of rupees of the complainant as well
as the other gullible people is quite grave in nature. Hence,
while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty
of a person, it is equally incumbent upon me to analyze the
seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for
custodial interrogation.
19. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court carefully
considered the principles established by the Constitution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2
SCC 565. After a thorough deliberation, the Supreme Court
arrived at the following conclusion:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended
before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as
to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her;
(vi)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number
of people.
xxx xxx xxx"
20. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC
731, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory
bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and
gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and
the specific facts of the case.
21. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court
for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different
from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering
regular bail.
22. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana
and another, (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined
that "the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding
individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the
misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals
from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a
delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance
between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public
interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of
innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of
the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and
free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these
interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case
becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
23. This Court after considering number of decisions of the
Apex Court as well as of this Court, has observed in case of
MOHMED SALIM ABDUL RASID SHAIKH V. STATE OF GUJARAT
reported in 2001 [2] GLR 1580 as under;
"13. There is no scope for present applicant to urge that
he may be saved from disgrace or unwarranted hardship.
While entertaining the anticipatory bail application of the
accused, the Court should consider various aspects such
as;
[i] earlier offences registered against the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
accused and the nature thereof including the area of
activity, modus etc. if brought to the notice of the Court;
[ii] gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is
committed. Whether custodial interrogation is, prima
facie, unavoidable ?
[iii] likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
[iv] position and status of the accused individually and
also with reference to the victim and witnesses;
[v] likelihood of repetition of similar type of offence;
[vi] whether he would jeopardise his own life being faced
with grief or grim prospects of possible conviction in the
case;
[vii] likelihood of tampering with the evidence or
witnesses during the process of investigation, status and
stage of investigation;
[viii] plea of false implication on some special vendetta, if
taken.
[ix] other relevant grounds which may apply to facts and
circumstances of that particular case; "
24. Similarly, the Apex Court has also considered the scope
of Section 438 in case of DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT
DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [FERA] V. ARUN
KUMAR BAJORIA reported in 1998 [1] SCC 52. The relevant
observations made in para-7 are quoted as under :-
"7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved
party approached the High Court challenging the order
passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the
position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the
Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
arresting the respondent and the time and places for
carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the
Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry
or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have
no doubt that such type of interference would impede the
even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious
allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division
Bench made such interference with the functions of the
statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise
under law, is not discernible from the order under
challenge. It is not the function of the Court to monitor
investigation processes so long as such investigation
does not transgress any provision of the law. It must be
left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the
timings and the questions and the manner of putting
such questions to persons involved in such offences. A
blanket order full insulating a person from arrest would
make his interrogation a mere ritual."
25. Now again reverting to the case on hand, from the
allegations levelled in the FIR and the materials placed on
record, it appears that very serious allegations of
misappropriation of crores of rupees have been made against
the applicants. 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. Further, there is a
bar under Section 17(2) of the G.P.I.D Act in granting pre-arrest
bail to the accused charged with under the provisions of the
said Act. Further, the offence as alleged is also non-bailable
and punishable with life imprisonment. Moreover, the co-
accused have been released on regular bail after being
arrested and interrogated, and in the case on hand, the
applicants are evading their arrest and are still absconding.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Thus, considering the above stated aspects as well as the
precedent cited above, in my view, at this stage, custodial
interrogation of the applicants is very much necessary.
26. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the
applicants to grant bail to the applicants on the ground that
the other co-accused have been granted bail, also cannot be
accepted as parity is not the law. While applying the principle
of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached
to the accused whose application is under consideration. In this
context, I would like to refer to and rely upon some of the
relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Tarun Kumar vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Special Leave Petition No.9431 of 2023,
decided on 20.11.2023, which read thus;
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to
grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other
co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant,
have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may
be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the
principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the
role attached to the accused whose application is under
consideration. It is not disputed in that the main accused
Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Managing Director of SBFL, and
KMP of group companies and the other accused Devki
Nandan Garg, owner/ operator/ controller of various shell
companies were granted bail on the ground of infirmity
and medical grounds. The co-accused Raman Bhuraria,
who was the internal auditor of SBFL has been granted
bail by the High Court, however the said order of High
Court has been challenged by the respondent before this
Court by filing being SLP (Crl.) No. 9047 of 2023 and the
same is pending under consideration. In the instant case,
the High Court in the impugned order while repelling the
said submission made on behalf of the appellant, had
distinguished the case of Raman Bhuraria and had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
observed that unlike Raman Bhuraria who was an internal
auditor of SBFL (for a brief period statutory auditor of
SBFL), the applicant was the Vice President of Purchases
and as a Vice President, he was responsible for the day-
to-day operations of the company. It was also observed
that the appellant's role was made out from the
financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned
off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant
was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the
order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under
consideration before the coordinate bench of this Court, it
would not be appropriate for us to make any observation
with regard to the said order passed by the High Court.
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on
the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or
irregularity has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has
been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been
a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of
people by any authority or by the court, without legal
basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a
matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong
decision."
27. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of
decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly,
economic offences have serious repercussions on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
development of the country as a whole. To cite a few
judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC
439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, Gautam Kundu vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act), Government of India Through Manoj
Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC
1, State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias
Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751. The Supreme Court taking
a serious note with regard to the economic offences had
observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat vs.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 364
as under:-
"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to books. A murder may be committed in the
heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An
economic offence is committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and
faith of the community in the system to administer justice
in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from
the quarters which view white collar crimes with a
permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
National Economy and National Interest..."
28. Moreover, when the Court is satisfied that a prima facie
case of custodial interrogation of the accused is made out by
the prosecution for securing the incriminating materials from
the information likely to be received from the accused, then
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the power under Section 482 should not be exercised in a
routine manner. The presence of the applicants, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, seems to
be necessary to uncover the truth. Further, the discretion
under Section 482 cannot be exercised with regard to offences
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, unless the
court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears
to be false or groundless. The larger interest of the public and
State demand that in serious cases like economic offences
involving cheating and misappropriation of huge volume of
amount, the discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS should
not be exercised.
29. Thus, what is discernible from the above is that while
deciding anticipatory bail application, it is the first duty of the
Court to see seriousness of the offence, prima facie case and
interest of the society at a large. Therefore, when no special
and compelling circumstances are made out and no case of
false implication of present applicants in the alleged offence is
made out before this Court, I am of the opinion that this Court
should refrain itself from exercising discretion in favour of the
present applicants at this stage.
30. Further, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the
present applicants are involved in a white collar socio-
economic offence which constitute a class apart and needs to
be viewed with a different approach. The economic offences
adversely affect the economic and social fabric of the country.
In such circumstances also, grant of anticipatory bail at this
stage would frustrate the investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4725/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
31. In view of above discussion and considering the materials
produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that there
seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present
applicants in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, this
Court is of the opinion that at the initial stage of the
investigation of the offence, grant of anticipatory bail in favour
of the applicants is likely to hamper the investigation and
investigating agency is likely to lose an opportunity to exploit
all the fact situation, probabilities or opportunities which the
Agency may get during the custodial interrogation of a person,
and therefore, keeping in mind all the factors, no interference
is required at this stage. The impugned orders passed by the
trial court, rejecting anticipatory bail application of the
applicants are just and proper and do not require any
interference at the end of this Court.
32. In the result, both the applications, being devoid of any
merit, are hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the
observations made by this Court herein above at this stage
while deciding the anticipatory bail applications, would not
come in the way of the applicants at the time as and when if
ultimately the trial court is proceeded with the trial, and at the
stage of consideration of regular bail application, if preferred
by the applicants. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
