The legislative intent behind Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure emphasizes the delicate balance between safeguarding personal liberty and protecting societal interests, and the court's discretion in weighing individual rights and public interest is crucial to ensure a just outcome.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210030230587 of 2023 with Mahidarpura Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is further stated that he is only a friend of Amar Patil, who is the accused in the complaint. It has been alleged against Amar Patil that he made a transaction of Rs. 5,00,000, whereas in fact, the present applicant has nothing to do with it. Even the alleged offence took place in December 2022, and the complaint was filed in July 2023. In the FIR, a specific date is mentioned using the phrase 'on the following day. It is further submitted that offence is not punishable by life or death. 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. He 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.

4. Per contra, The learned APP submits that the applicant has a direct involvement in the offence. At the outset, the present applicant and other co-accused allegedly hatched a conspiracy in connivance with each other and an unknown person in December 2022. They purportedly gave assurance to the complainant that they would provide a loan at an interest rate of 4% to 6% per annum, with the intention to defraud. To execute the agreement, they received an advance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- through RTGS, which was deposited into the account of I.U. Multimedia Company and one Sweta Gajvi and these all accused received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and the said amount has not been returned back and they have committed the fraud. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and after giving the thoughtful consideration, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant and the other co-accused, in connivance with each other, deceived and defrauded the complainant by assuring them of a loan of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Fifty Crore Rupees) at an interest rate of 4% to 6%. To facilitate this, they demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- as a commission, which the complainant transferred to the account of I.U. Multimedia through RTGS. Subsequently, the accused individuals informed the complainant that, in order to proceed with the agreement and related proceedings, they needed to travel to Goa to execute the agreement. During this time, they cooked up various stories. Therefore, all these aspects require thorough investigation. Thus, the present applicant is charged with conspiracy, and a significant financial transaction is involved. Therefore, the present offence is a white-collar socio-economic offence and should be approached differently.

6. From the documents on record, it also appears that present applicant- accused No.4 was found in the company of accused No.3 in the office, where they discussed the transfer of funds to I.U. Multimedia. The present applicant was also observed wrapping and concealing currency notes of Rs.2,000/- in such a manner that they could not be detected during security checks at the airport. Furthermore, it appears that the applicant informed the complainant that, due to so