JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, after arguing the matter for almost three and half hours, once the arguments were concluded, though, learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the applicant never experience that any of his contentions were left out to be incorporated in the order in the past, apprehended that this Court may not incorporate some of the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mangukia and therefore, the order is being dictated in presence of learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya and learned advocate Ms. Bela A. Prajapati.

2. By way of this application, preferred under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has prayed for his release in connection with the offence registered in CID Crime Police Station vide FIR I-9 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021.

3. The application for bail was preferred on 18.09.2021. At the time, when the bail application was preferred, the applicant was represented by some other advocate. Thereafter, the applicant was enlarged on temporary bail vide order dated 20.12.2021 as the assurance was given on behalf of the counsel of the applicant that the earnest efforts would be made for repaying the amount and to show bonafides particularly because the complainants were two unmarried senior citizens whose life time savings in purchasing the flats was taken and who are allegedly cheated by the present applicant. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the temporary bail was granted to the present applicant vide order dated 20.12.2021 with a condition that he shall surrender before the jail authorities on 25.02.2022. However, though an assurance was given, it seems that no efforts were made in the interregnum period to keep the words of assurance given by the advocate for the applicant and therefore, ultimately the applicant surrendered on 25.02.2022.

4. At the time when present application was preferred, the same was preferred before charge-sheet. During the pendency of this application, charge-sheet came to be filed and as the learned advocate for the applicant insisted that the application for bail be considered irrespective of the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed after the bail application was preferred and therefore, upon his insistence, after charge-sheet, the same bail application was argued by learned advocate for the applicant by pointing out the relevant material from the charge-sheet papers received by learned advocate for the applicant.

5. Though the bail application is of the year 2021, once the applicant was enlarged on temporary bail, the same could not be heard till he surrendered. Once the applicant surrendered, after some time, the advocate for the applicant was changed and thereafter, the matter could not be heard as on a number of occasions, either any of the learned advocates appearing for the parties requested for time or learned advocates appearing for the parties were not present when the matter was called out or there was a leave note or sick note, when the matter was listed before this Court and that is how the matter is heard today i.e. on 06.01.2023.

6. In the present case, FIR is registered before CID Crime Police Station by daughter of one Jesingbhai Chandulal Doshi namely Bhanuben Jesingbhai Doshi aged 69 years at the time when the FIR was registered on 18.08.2021 alleging that the complainant herself and her sister - Jayamtiben who both are unmarried senior citizens and were retired before 14 years and leaving retired life. It is further stated that the complainant retired from the service as teacher in the year 2010 and therefore, the complainant and her sister thought to invest the amount received by them towards retirement benefits in such a manner that they may get good return. Ultimately, they visited two schemes floated by the present applicant being Shukan Glory Developers and Sukan Enjoy. As they liked the schemes, on 25.02.2012, sister of the complainant Jayamtiben decided to book Flat No. F -102 and paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash. Another