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-3/2018 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Surat for the offenses punishable under Sections 364(A), 365, 384, 387, 343, 323, 504, 506(2), 170, 193, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.

2. The gist of the FIR is that:

The accused named in the FIR have hatched conspiracy and to accomplish it, they have abducted the victims, Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani and illegally detained them for three days and threatened them by identifying themselves as officers of the IT Department and on the point of fire arms, 2256 bit coins worth of Rs. 131,07,36,000/- has been transferred in black chain wallet of Shailesh Bhatt, 11,000 lite coins worth of Rs. 9,64,00,000/- have been transferred in the balance wallet of Kirit Paladiya and obtained cash amount of Rs. 14,50,00,000/- from Angadiya and thereby the accused have committed alleged offences.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri N.D. Nanavati assisted by learned advocate, Mr. R.H. Rupareliya for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is falsely implicated in the FIR in question. It is submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed an FIR being C.R. No. I-2/2018 against the Police Officers at the instance of the present applicant and in the said FIR, the Superintendent of Police is also implicated and, therefore with a view to pressurize the applicant, FIR in question is filed. He, therefore, urged that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned advocate would thereafter submit that the investigating agency has recorded the statement of one Vinubhai Savaliya i.e. the father of a person (Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya), who was alleged to have been kidnapped. Learned advocate has referred to the said statement, which was recorded on 26.05.2018 and after referring to the same, it is contended that Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya was not kidnapped as alleged in the FIR. At this stage, learned advocate has also referred to the affidavit dated 05.05.2018 signed by said Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya and, thereafter, submitted that the said person was not abducted as alleged.

6. Learned advocate further submits that the inquiry was conducted on the basis of alleged application dated 07.02.2018 given by said Piyush Savaliya, however, the said application is not signed by him and, therefore, the statement of said Piyush Savaliya recorded on 19.05.2018 may not be believed by this Court.

7. Learned advocate at this stage submitted that all other co-accused are released on regular bail either by this Court or by the concerned Sessions Court. Learned advocate has referred to said orders, which are produced on record. He, therefore, urged that in the facts of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and, therefore, this Court may release the applicant on anticipatory bail. He has also contended that warrant under Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has not been issued against the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is an absconder.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amin has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that FIR in question relates to kidnapping of Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani and both these persons were kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom in the nature of extorting bit coins and cash from the said victims. It is contended that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that after the victims were kidnapped and illegally detained, 2091 bit coins were forcefully extorted from them, which was subsequently transferred in the account (block chain wallet) of the applicant and