The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the nature of the allegations, role attributed to the accused, and the law laid down by the Apex Court.

ORDER :

1. Since, both the matters arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

1.1 Rule. Learned APPs waive service for the Respondent- State and learned Advocate, Ms. Jemini Patel, waives service for the First Informant in both the petitions.

1.2 By way of the present petitions, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR, registered as C.R. No. 11191035230355 of 2023 with Naroda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City, under Section 406, 420, 409, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner, namely Jagdihbhai Jethabhai Chauhan, submitted that he is not named in the FIR and as such, he is innocent. It was submitted that the name of Jagdishbhai was proposed as a trustee of the Trust, however, since, the Charity Commissioner did not accept the Change Report, he could not become the trustee. It was submitted that the role of Jagdishbhai was to collect cash amount from various departments of the hospital run by the Trust and to deposit the same in the bank account of the Trust, however, in the FIR it is alleged that instead so doing, Jagdishbhai gave such amounts to accused No.1, namely Bharatsinh Talakinh Gohil, and thereby, a huge amount is alleged to have been siphoned by Jagdishbhai and other accused persons. It was submitted that, however, there is no material on record to indicate that Jagdishbhai siphoned or misappropriated any amount of the Trust. It was submitted that one of the co-accused, namely Jigar Sandipkumar Jain, has been granted pre-arrest bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12185 of 2023, whereas, another co-accused, namely Pravin Ramabhai Patel, has been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.08.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11724 of 2023. It was, further, submitted that on the basis of the calculation made by the concerned C.A., which is of notional in nature, it is being alleged that the huge amount has been siphoned or misappropriated.

2.1 Insofar as the petitioner, namely Ambeshkumar Popatlal Panchal, is concerned, learned Advocate, Mr. Bharda, submitted that the Ambeshbhai was supposed to make only the entries in the books of account and to forward the same to the C.A. and therefore, it cannot be said that Ambeshbhai has siphoned any amount. It was submitted that Ambeshbhai has no role at all to play in the commission of the alleged offence. It was submitted that in the case of Ambeshbhai, at the most, it can be said that there appears to be dereliction from duty and nothing more. It was submitted that the other co-accused have already been granted either anticipatory or regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

2.2 It was also jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that the FIR in question is filed by the First Informant, who was in USA, at the relevant point of time. It was also submitted that the petitioners already once appeared before the concerned IO and they are further ready and willing to cooperate with the IO, if required. It was submitted that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Ahmedabad city, having movable and immovable properties and therefore, it was submitted that considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed qua some of the accused persons and as the investigation is practically over and the evidence is lying in the safe custody of the prosecution, considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioners, the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Ms. Gemini Patel, appearing for the First Informant strongly opposed these petitions and submitted that the present petitioners