Point of Law: The Expression "shall be deemed" is, generally, used in the statues when the legislature wants to confer a status or an attribute to a person or thing which is not intrinsically possessed by that person or thing, on whom, the conferment is made. It is well settled that whatever an Act requires to be deemed or taken as true of any person or thing must in law be considered as having been duly adjudged or established concerning such person or thing and have force and effect accordingly

ORDER :

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No.11217027200753 of 2020 before Radhanpur Police Station, District: Patan for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2), 294(B) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) 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. Besides the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. 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. Learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for respondent no.2 have strongly opposed the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that present applicant is the main accused and by profession, he is a builder and had collected huge money by misleading the people that he has purchased a land bearing Survey No.235/1 paiki and people were cheated by showing the same land where the scheme for plots namely "Tirupati Residency". That however, the complainant and other victims found that the said plot was not sold to the applicant-accused. That the original owners have denied ownership of the applicant and categorically stated that they have not sold the land to the applicant. That intention of the applicant was to cheat innocent people and to amass huge wealth and therefore, this is a fit case to reject the present application. Learned APP has referred a report dated 02.11.2020 under the signature of Police Inspector, Radhanpur Police Station and supported the said report.

5. Learned advocate for respondent no.2, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harivallabh Parikh versus State of Gujarat reported in 1997(1) GLR 368 as well as in the case of Rameshchandra Kashiram Vora versus State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 GLH 836 and argued that without approaching the learned Sessions Court, applicant cannot be permitted to approach the High Court by filing bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., he should not be permitted to approach this Court unless, there are exceptional and compelling circumstances. Ultimately, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has requested to dismiss present application.

6. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it appears that the complainant opted for the scheme and accordingly, paid sum amount of first installment to the accused no.4 on 25.06.2012. Some family members/cousins of the complainant also opted for the scheme and paid installments and thereby, total amount of Rs.69,200/- towards 24 installments were paid by the complainant. Other family members/cousins also paid same amount, each towards 24 installments. Thus, total amount of Rs.2,76,800/- was deposited by the complainant and family members/cousins. As per the allegations made in the complaint, when the complainant went to deposit 25th ins