The main legal point established is that in cases involving commercial transactions and failed business ventures, the court may consider the nature of expenses and the purpose of the FIR in granting anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. I.H. Saiyed with learned advocate Ms. Ketki Jha for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chugh for learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the first informant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22263 of 2019 and learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta for the first informant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13792 of 2020.

2. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being CR-I 6 of 2019 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad Zone, on 05.08.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 465, 467 and 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22263 of 2019 had initially been protected vide an order dated 02.12.2019 and whereas it also appears that after hearing both the parties vide an order dated 25.11.2020, the learned Co-ordinate bench of this Court had protected both the applicants and whereas such protection has enured in favour of the applicants till date.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Saiyed for the applicant would submit that the dispute between the parties involves a commercial transaction which took place between the parties and whereas there is no criminality whatsoever involved and as a matter of fact the learned senior advocate would submit that the documents which is placed on record by the first informant being under the title of ‘Summary of Expenses’ clearly shows that the amount of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- approximately, which is the amount allegedly defrauded by the applicants, was infact expenses which had been incurred by the first informant party in developing business of a venture/company in which the first informant party as well as the applicants were stakeholders. Learned senior advocate would further submit that since the venture, which had been jointly entered into by the parties concerned, did not take off as successfully as the parties had intended to, the first informant has preferred the FIR more particularly for recovery of his dues, the said dues being expenses which had been incurred by the first informant party in promoting the joint venture. Learned senior advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to the observations of the learned co-ordinate bench to the orders dated 22.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18838 of 2019 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 19592 of 2019 respectively, whereby the learned co-ordinate bench had inter-alia while releasing the co-accused on regular bail had observed that the FIR prima-facie appears to be filed for the purpose of recovery of amount which is invested in the company and whereas it is further observed by the learned co-ordinate bench that the offence is registered on account of failed business which otherwise was on the strength of technology developed by the applicant. Having regard to such submissions and further requesting this Court to consider that applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22263 of 2019 is a lady accused, learned senior advocate would request this Court to consider the application and release the applicants on pre-arrest bail.

Learned senior advocate Mr. Saiyed 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 would further submit 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.

5. This application is vehemently objected by learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chugh on behalf