Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Jal S. Unwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jay J. Jani.
For the Complainant :Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul R. Dholakia.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.K. Shah, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Key Points: - The Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to conditions and liberty to seek remand (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes cooperation with investigation, potential remand, and that arrest entails serious consequences; it stresses careful evaluation of peculiar facts and civil/criminal nature considerations (!) (!) . - The order sets specific bail conditions: personal bond, surety, cooperation, no inducement, address proof, no leaving Gujarat without permission, monthly presence at police station, and eligibility for police remand via Magistrate if needed; order is valid for 90 days (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Background facts include MoU between parties, alleged breach, 12% return, and disputes surrounding MoU and civil vs. criminal nature; previous civil decrees and 138 NI Act proceedings referenced (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court notes prior investigations and multiple applications, with ongoing civil disputes and lack of civil action for damages, supporting anticipatory bail in this peculiar context (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision reserves liberty for remand and notes that the applicant cooperated, including statements and written replies; acknowledges arrest consequences to family (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the result and rationale for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in this case?

What factors justify or oppose custodial interrogation or remand in anticipation of an FIR under sections including 406, 409, 420, 465, 294(b), and 506(1) NI Act?

What are the conditions imposed on the applicant when enlarging him on anticipatory bail and the scope for further remand?