VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-4 of 2016 registered with CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 85(1)(b)(c)(e),(f)(g), 85(2)(g) and 85(4) and 85(6) of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Tanvish Bhatt appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR nor he is shown as accused in the charge-sheet which is filed against the co-accused. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the applicant thrice. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatt has, thereafter, referred to the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Rajendra @ Sonubhai Jethabhai Keshwani and Minesh Manubhai Vyas, whereby both the co-accused are released on anticipatory bail. Thereafter, learned advocate for the applicant referred to the order dated 13.6.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in the case of co-accused Amitbhai Arvindbhai Pancholi, whereby the said co-accused was released on regular bail. Learned advocate has, thereafter, placed reliance upon the order dated 28.8.2017, by which, this Court has entertained anticipatory bail filed by atleast eight co-accused. It is submitted that the said order was challenged by the State by filing SLP(Crl.)Dairy No.178 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 16.2.2018. It is, therefore, urged that when the main co-accused are released on anticipatory bail, this Court may exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. At this state, he has also pointed out that the applicant is aged about 65 years and working as Vice-President(Sales) since many years in Dharmpal Satyapal Ltd. Company.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that for providing dump data as asked for by the Investigating Officer, technical personnel is required. However, the applicant is not technical personnel. He is Vice-President (Sales), therefore he is not in possession of dump data. It is further submitted that the data which was available with the applicant was already submitted/provided to the Investigating Officer. He, therefore, urged that this application be granted.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant has also produced on record the communication dated 15.9.2018 addressed by Anilkumar Mathur, officer of the company to the Investigating Officer. From the said communication, it is revealed that the said officer viz. Anilkumar Mathur has provided the entire dump data in hard copies to the Investigating Agency. Therefore also, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and he may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 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