ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 11 May 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Criminal Misc. Application No.123 of 2022 preferred by the Respondent No.2 whereby the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by an order dated 10 August 2021 passed in ABA No.552 of 2021 came to be cancelled and a non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant – accused, is assailed in this application.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under :

3.1 Santosh V. Soans - first informant, lodged a report with Manikpur Police Station with the allegations that he was induced by the applicant and the co-accused Amit Jain and Yogesh Bhalerao to invest an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs in the scheme floated by Aaj Edu Plus Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (the financial establishment), of which Amit Jain and Yogesh Bhalerao were the directors, by making a false representation of lucrative returns. Later, the Respondent No.2 and other investors were also defrauded in similar fashion to the tune of Rs. 8 Crores approximately. The applicant was working as a Sales Manager at the said company and had made representations that if the first informant and investors invested the amount with the said financial establishment, they would earn lucrative returns. Neither the principal amount was repaid, nor return thereon, as promised. Realizing the fraud, the first informant lodged a report leading to registration of C.R.No.195 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

3.2 Eventually, the co-accused Amit was arrested in the month of September 2021 and Yogesh was arrested in the month of October 2021.

3.3 The applicant preferred an application for pre-arrest bail. By an order dated 10 August 2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, was persuaded to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant ascribing reasons. It appears that the investigation came to be transferred to the Economic Offences Wing. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed on 8 November 2021.

3.4 The Respondent No.2, who claimed to be one of the investors, preferred an application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail on 8 September 2022. It was, inter alia, alleged that the applicant had played a major role in the fraud and was also the beneficiary thereof. The Applicant falsely claimed to be the victim of the fraud. Thus, the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was required to be cancelled.

3.5 By the impugned order, the leaned Additional Sessions Judge was persuaded to allow the said application preferred by the Respondent No.2 and cancelled the order of pre-arrest bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that while seeking pre-arrest bail, the applicant had suppressed many material facts. Had those facts, which were unearthed by the vigilant investors, been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court would not have granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that a thorough investigation regarding the role of the applicant and the intimate transactions between the said company and SRK, entity of the applicant, was required, and, therefore, the Investigating Officer must carry out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Holding thus, the bail was cancelled.

4. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. An endeavour is made to support the impugned order. Co-accused are stated to be in custody. Yet the applicant, who is the prime beneficiary of the alleged fraud, is at large. The applicant was a prime beneficiary and had obtained the order of pre-arrest bail by falsely claiming to be the victim of the alleged fraud and, therefore, the learned Addi