[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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.
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: -
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
