IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 24960 of 2025 ==========================================================

PRATIKBHAI SHASHIKANTBHAI GALCHAT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE WITH MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant, who is shown as accused no. 2 in the FIR, which came to be registered by CID Crime Police Station, Rajkot vide FIR No. null250002 of 2025 under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The FIR, which came to be lodged by one Jigar Ashokbhai Bhatt, speaks about he and his mother running a multiple financial product distribution in the name of ‘Huge Wealth Investment’ at Bhavnagar. It is mentioned that, the original complainant had come in contact with the accused Vivek Nathani’s father – Milanbhai Nathani in the year 2016, who had pursued the original complainant to invest in Mutual Funds. Thereafter, the said Milanbhai Nathani had introduced his son Vivek Nathani, who is the accused no. 1, to the original complainant, who had lured the original complainant with 7% returns against investments in his firm Dwija Financial Solutions. Hence, the original complainant had got his customers and relatives invest in the schemes advised by the accused Vivek Nathani, who initially was giving 7% returns to the original complainant, out of which, the original complainant used to pay 2 to 3% of the returns to his clients as well as relatives.

2.1 It is mentioned in the FIR that, the original complainant from 03.12.2021 to 23.12.2023 had transferred Rs.6,50,54,000/- from his mother’s bank accounts in IDBI and HDFC banks to Vivek’s bank account in HDFC bank. It is further stated that, to win over the trust of the original complainant, the accused Vivek Nathani initially had paid the returns as promised. However, thereafter, the accused Vivek Nathani and the present applicant did not return the amount of Rs.3,48,15,500/-, and thereafter, inspite of they having asked for the said amounts, neither the principal amount nor the returns accrued on it, were given to the original complainant, and thus they were duped of the huge amount by both the accused.

3. Herd learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch appearing with Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya, learned advocate for the applicant. Mr. Buch has reiterated the averments of the application. According to him, the entire case pertains to documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the Investigation Officer. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The dispute is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. The applicant was hired by the main accused as an Office Boy, and his duty was only to look after the customers who would come to the office, and no more.

Hence, this application should be allowed.

4. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP who has strongly opposed this application submitting that, the applicant had also opened an account in the name of ‘Bhansali Value Creation’ whereby he had engaged himself in trading, and had invested the amounts of investors in the said portfolio. Hence, to say that he was merely an Office Boy is not true. Mr. Joshi has also submitted the printouts of the bank accounts reflecting the monies which had come to the applicant’s account.

Accordingly, the present application should be rejected.

5. Mr. Joshi, learned APP has placed on record the statement of the applicant dated 14.07.2025, which cam