The court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised sparingly, especially in cases of economic offences, and that the investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11216007230386 of 2023 registered with Sector 21 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that police complaint is filed by Mr. Veer Singh Babulal Dangi stating that present accused person along with other co- accused persons had hatched a pre-planned conspiracy and against the complainant and misused his documents PAN card, Aadhaar card, photo etc. to opened bank account in the Canara Bank Sector-16 Gandhinagar branch in the name his firm, Om Catering by doing false signature of complainant and done RY many bank transaction without his knowledge and closed down the said bank account without paying the GST on it and committed fraud with the complainant.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Mehta for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the complainant and learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the State.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the present petitioner is innocent; he is retired Class I government officer and falsely implicated in the offence. He would further submit that the petitioner has not played any active role in commission of the offence. He would further submit that the FIR is filed against the petitioner as pressurized tactics. According to the FIR, the main accused is Rajeev Naidu, son of the present petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is now retired, however, he was Regional Director of the then Sports Authority of India at the relevant time and thus, taking the advantage of that aspect, he has been falsely involved in the offence. He would further submit that the entire offence related to the documents only and the documents are in custody of the investigating officer. He would further submit that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the alleged transaction nor petitioner has played any active role in opening the bank account with the Canara bank and as such, has not misused the account of Om catering fraudulently opened with the Canara Bank. He would further submit that even otherwise Mr Vivek Sahu was authorised by the partner of Om catering belongs to the first informant to conduct and carry banking activity. He would further submit that as per para 51, Annexure F, Om catering is belonged to the complainant and one Mr Punit Agarwal and they have authorised Mr Vivek Sahu to operate all the activities on behalf of them. He would further submit that Mr. Vivek Sahu is the main person who has played role in opening of the account in Canara Bank by misusing documents like pan card, Aadhaar card etc.

4.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior citizen and is ready and willing to join the investigation. Referring to page 45, he would submit that though it is alleged that the petitioner has misused the bank account and transferred money to purchase immovable property at Nagpur, in fact, the execution of the agreement indicates that the agreement was executed between Orange Infrastructure Development and Mr Punit Agarwal, who is partner of Om catering. He would further submit that, false allegation of financial gain has been levelled against the petitioner.

4.2 Referring to affidavit filed by the first informant, Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the present FIR is a counter blast to evade the liability of the GST authority. He would further submit that the petitioner has never misused the bank account of Om catering nor has got financial gain from it. He would further submit that no forged document has ever been created by the petitioner or submitted them as genuine. Upon such submissions he request to allow this petition.

4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has