R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13399 of 2025 (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) ======================================================= MANOJ VELJI GOGARI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ======================================================= Appearance: MR NARENDRA L JAIN(5647) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HERSCHELLE K RAVAL(18164) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA AP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ======================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 11/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. At the outset, learned advocate, Mr. Narendra Jain for the applicants, seeks permission to withdraw this application qua the applicant nos.2 and 3 with a liberty to file fresh before this Court in view of the objection raised by learned advocate, Mr. Virat Popat for the original complainant with regard to maintainability of the present application. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The present application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties waive service of notice of rule. 3. 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 R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210050250781 of 2025 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Jain submitted that for the incident, which has occurred from the year 2015 till date, FIR has been lodged on 15.06.2025 and thus, there is gross delay in registration of the FIR and the complainant has failed to explain the delay. He submitted that the aforesaid FIR is filed as an arm-twisting method with a sole intent to recover the amount from the applicant and narration of the facts clearly goes on to show that for the business transaction, criminal colour is given. He submitted that in fact, for the dispute in question, the civil proceeding ought to have been instituted but as the period to institute the civil suit is already lapsed, under the clock of criminality, the complainant has tried to recover the said amount from the applicant. 5. Learned advocate has referred to the allegations leveled in the FIR and submitted that the complainant and the accused are relatives and they have entered into business transaction and as a part of the said transaction, certain amount had been paid by the complainant to the accused persons and the accused have repaid the amount of profit from the aforesaid investment utpo 2019-20 and, thereafter, they have stopped making payment, R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 as a result of which, disputes have been cropped and ultimately, FIR has been lodged instead of availing civil remedy as there was commercial/ business transaction. 6. Learned advocate has drawn attention towards the FIR lodged against him with Dahisar Police Station, Bombay, however, the said FIR has already been quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, copies of those documents are placed on record. He further submitted that during the interregnum period, the complainant had issued notice through advocate, however, the story narrated in the said notice is quite different and distinct than the allegations leveled in the FIR. He further submitted that so far as the allegations leveled under Section 316(5) of the BNS, 2023 is concerned, the said provision is not at all attracted to the applicant as the applicant is not Government servant, therefore, bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the applicant. He submitted that considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. He further submitted under the instructions that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions while releasing the R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 applicant on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 the complainant and the accused are close relatives and the accused have stated that they have floated one scheme, wherein he would invest money, in that event, he would earn huge profit and relying upon the said statement, the complainant had invested and after making payment on the said investment, the accused have won the confidence of the complainant and, thereafter, the accused have duped the complainant by not paying the amount. He submitted that the allegations and accusation leveled in the FIR clearly goes on to show right from the inception, there was entrustment between the parties and as a part of the said entrustment, certain amount had been paid by the complainant to the accused and after having received huge amount, they have not repaid it and thus, the accused have committed alleged offences. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained. 8. Learned advocate, Mr. Popat appearing for the original complainant has also objected the present application and submitted that more than R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 Rs.75,00,000/- have been pocketed by the accused from the complainant from the year 2019-20 under the guise of giving huge profit, however thereafter, the accused have stopped making payment and thereby the complainant was duped. He submitted that in fact, there is no delay in registration of the FIR but as averred in the FIR, upto 2021, the accused have repaid the amount and since 2022, they have stopped making payment, as a result of which, disputes were cropped up, which resulted into submission of application by the complainant before the concerned Police Station but after carrying out preliminary inquiry, no FIR was registered, therefore, it cannot be said that there is delay in registration of the FIR. He, however, submitted that bare perusal of the allegations and accusation leveled in the FIR clearly goes on to show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime and there is also an FIR registered at Bombay. He submitted that in fact, before registration of the FIR, notice was issued to the accused through advocate for the repayment of the amount but the accused did not turn up, therefore, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained. 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 R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 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 applicant 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 applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant 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. I have considered the allegations leveled in the FIR and found that the incident has occurred from the year 2015 till the date of registration of the FIR, for which, FIR has been lodged on 15.06.2025 and thus, there is gross delay in registration of the FIR. It is found out from the documents produced on record that, there were business/ commercial transactions between the applicant and the complainant and upto 2019-20, the applicant had paid amount of profit from the investment done by the complainant, however thereafter, the applicant stopped making payment, which resulted R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 into dispute between the parties and thus, it seems that civil dispute is converted into criminal one by filing aforesaid FIR. Not only that, the complainant had issued notice to the applicant for the repayment, wherein different story than the allegations leveled in the FIR has been narrated. There is no dispute about registration of FIR at Dahisar, however in the said FIR, settlement has been arrived at and the FIR has been quashed on the strength of the settlement. Further, the case is based upon documentary evidence and all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Thus considering the above facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application. 12. In the result, the present application is allowed partly by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant no.1 in connection R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 with FIR being C.R. No. 11210050250781 of 2025 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 18.07.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change her/his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the R/CR.MA/13399/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail; (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.- 13. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent qua the applicant no.1. Rule is discharged qua the applicant nos.2 and 3. Direct service is permitted. (DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: GAUTAM G PATIL(HC00190), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/07/2025 14:34:34