Anticipatory bail granted based on the applicant's lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate with the investigation, emphasizing the need for judicious discretion in bail applications.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, who has instructions to appear for the original complainant.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), 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.11191039240423 of 2024 registered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence however the complaint is filed with ulterior motive. Though earlier complainant had filed the private complaint before the learned Magistrate being Criminal Inquiry No.7/2015 which came to be dismissed and said order was challenged by way of filing Criminal Revision Application No.243/2018 before the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad which was also dismissed in the year 2019 which was challenged before this Court by way of filing Special Criminal Application No.550/2023 and same is pending adjudication. The first date of listing of said petition was 13.01.2023 and thereafter once again Criminal Inquiry No.4390/2023 came to be filed and the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass an order on 29.07.2024 under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and directed to submit the report within one day in connection of the complaint filed by the complainant dated 16.09.2025, 04.11.2022 and 04.10.2022 which is obviously second round of litigation. At the relevant point of time, applicant was not serving in Sabarmati Branch of the Bank of India. The allegation leveled against the applicant is that applicant has not borrowed or received any amount of loan from the Bank of India or no machinery or loan or advance facility is obtained from the Bank of India. At earlier point of time the complainant for the purpose of purchasing machinery had applied for loan from Canara Bank and thereafter the accused persons in the Sabarmati Branch of Bank of India approved loan of Rs.40 lakh in favor of the complainant on his KYC documents but as the rate of interest was higher no loan amount was withdrawn though fictitious and sham loan transaction was done and as and when subsidy amount was credited in the account of the complainant, he came to know about the fraud and he filed the complaint but prior to that his account was classified ass NPA and installment were also regularly being paid and due to default proceeding for recovery is also filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is pending. Once the complaint was filed under Section 203 of the CrPC, it amounts to acquittal and thereafter question does not arise to register the second complaint which is pending before this Court. Even, the applicant is protected since 25.09.2024 by the coordinate Bench of this Court and applicant is not having any past antecedent and is a retired senior ofÏcer. Even, the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Rishabh Jain for learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya have opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that though present applicant did not apply for loan facility, he has not availed any loan from the Bank and it is shown that applicant has borrowed the loan from Bank of India to purchase machinery, no machinery is supplied and no evidence qua delivery of machine is brought on record. Agents and bank ofÏcers are involved in the large scale scam and hence, as custodial interrog