IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences is an extraordinary remedy and should be considered only in exceptional cases, balancing the rights of the accused with the gravity of the accusation and the impact on society.

ORDER :

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Asim Pandya with Mr.Gaurav Vyas, learned advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate Mr.Nirav Padhiyar for org. complainant nd learned APP Mr.HK Patel, for respondent – State.

2. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as I-C.R. No.7 of 2022 registered with the CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 114, 120(8), 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(6), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of The Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (hereafter "GPID Act").

3. The case of the prosecution as emerging from FIR in nutshell is that one Mr.Vasim Raja as the main accused and is primarily associated with the Ketsaal Retail LLP (for short the company). The accused–Vasim Raja has floated this company. The complainant came in his contact and invested the amount in the said company and had done business since December, 2018 to 2021 and got the investment promise by Vasim Raja even during the difficult period of COVID-19; but once the business of the company has been weaken Mr.Vaim Raja could not pay the compromise returns to the complainant and therefore he has filed the false and frivolous FIR against the present petitioners.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that basically this is an FIR demonstrating that how the business transaction can be converted into the criminal act and action. When narrating this fact, learned senior counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that present petitioners were silent partners of the company and they had never promise to the complainant. They have never lured the complainant to invest any amount in the company. He would further submit that since the petitioners are the silent partners of the company, it could not be said that they have played active role in commission of the offence for luring the complainant to invest the amount. In view of that, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners from the FIR.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that in fact Vasim Raja could not said to be accused in offence as he has never promised to return any amount; but the complainant on his own invested the amount in the company and since the business could not work properly, lose occurred and therefore there is no question of comitting the offence under Section 406 or there is any criminal breach of trust or forgery or fabricating the documents and to present them as genuine. He would further submit that in absence of intention to disclose or cheat the complainant, prima facie no offence is made out as alleged in the FIR.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that in view of promise cheque worth Rs.12 Crores has been deposited under the GPID Act, 2003; the bungalow jointly occupied by Vasim Raja with the present petitioners has been attached by the authority and value thereof is Rs.15.00 Crore so majority of the amount which is involved in the offence is secured and in view of that present petitioners are secured with the authority and therefore present petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

4.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that petitioners are readily available for investigation and would join the investigation as and when required. There is no flight risk if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4.4 Insofar as the issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.PC is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that in a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., [2024 SCC Online SC 282] no absolute ban has been applied in granting anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail where the warrant under Section 70 has been issued. He would further