Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases; the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, especially in serious economic offences.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the respective respondents.

2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I- C.R.No.11208052240585 of 2024 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot for the punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Dwarkesh Enterprise and is engaged in the wholesale mobile business. During the course of business, the complainant came into contact with Accused No. 1, and a business relationship developed. Between March 2024 and June 2024, the complainant conducted business transactions amounting to Rs.7,55,000/- for mobile phones and other accessories. However, when the complainant sought recovery of the amount, Accused No. 1 refused to repay it and allegedly committed the said offence.

4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has no involvement in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. The offence is punishable by up to seven years. No notice under Section 35 of the BNS has been issued. The alleged transaction is a commercial transaction. The applicant holds an Udyam Registration Certificate and has purchased mobile phones from the complainant. Out of the total amount of Rs.27,55,000/-, the applicant has already paid Rs.26,66,227/- to the complainant, leaving a balance of only Rs.90,773/-, which the applicant is ready and willing to pay. It is submitted that Accused No. 2, who happens to be the father of the present applicant and played a similar role, has been released on bail. In view of the above, the applicant prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State and learned advocate appearing for the original complaiannt has opposed the application. The learned APP has produced on record a report prepared by J.J. Gohil, Police Sub-Inspector, Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City and submitted that the applicant is directly involved in the offense. The applicant was initially served by the notice under Section 35 of the BNS, but he did not join the investigation. The role of the present applicant is quite different from that of his father, who is accused No.2 in the FIR. The applicant received an Apple MacBook and 70 mobile phones worth Rs.27,55,000 from the complainant. However, he has not paid the complainant for the said mobile phones. Therefore, this is not merely a case of a commercial transaction but also one where the applicant misled the investigating officer. Furthermore, he sold mobile phones with the same IMEI numbers to another retailer by forging a bill from OnePlus Company. By using the forged bill and false IMEI numbers, he resold the mobile phones, even though the complainant had already sold them to him. The investigation revealed that the applicant sold seven mobile phones to a shop owner using fraudulent bills. Verification showed discrepancies, as the complainant had purchased only two phones from OnePlus, while others were from Amazon and Reliance Digital. The accused provided fake invoices to mislead the shop owner. In this regard, statements from the retailers have also been recorded. Considering the aforesaid facts, custodial interrogation is required. The present applicant has prepared forged bills in the name of SMK Mobiles and, to mislead the investigation, has sold 63 mobile phones without bills. The said muddamal is yet to be recovered. Hence, considering the conduct of the present applicant and the fact that the offense involves criminal breach of trust and forgery, which are punishable by more than seven years, custodial interrogation is necessary. Twice notice under Section 35 has been issued, but he has not joined the