1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.

2. By way of the present application under S.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the written complaint being C.A.No.22/2025 dated 11.01.2025 submitted at Sachin GIDC Police Station, Surat City for the alleged offences as mentioned therein.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari appearing for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari also submits that the said written complaint is filed on 11.01.2025 by one Jasbinder Palsingh Grover against the present applicant and other three accused persons, for the offence alleged to have been taken place way back in the year 2015, and as such, there is a huge delay of almost 10 years in filing the said written complaint. He further submits that pursuant to the filing of the aforesaid written complaint, the concerned investigating officer issued notice to the applicant, and therefore, the applicant has come to know about the filing of the aforesaid complaint. As soon as the applicant has come to know about the said fact, the applicant filed anticipatory bail application before the trial court, however, the said application has not been entertained by the trial court, and therefore, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari submits that as per the allegations made in the complaint, the present applicant came into contact with the complainant through accused No.2 and then they started business transactions with each other, and the role of the applicant is that he acted as a broker between the complainant and the accused No.4. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari submits that the alleged transaction took place between the complainant's Firm and one Prince Marketing, a proprietorship firm owned by the accused No.4 - Mr. Deepak Ratilal Patva. It is alleged in the written complaint that during the period between May, 2015 and August, 2015, the accused persons purchased coal worth Rs.3.52 Crores from the complainant, out of which, an outstanding amount of Rs.1,36,00,000/- was not paid by the accused persons. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari further submits that, therefore, two complaints were filed by the complainant before the Sachin GIDC Police Station, wherein a notarized settlement took place between the complainant and accused No.4 on 17.07.2016, wherein it was mutually agreed that accused No.4 would clear the entire outstanding amount of Rs.1.36 Crore in installments, as per the terms and conditions as stated in the settlement deed. However, as the accused No.4 could not honour the terms of the settlement agreement, he agreed to transfer certain properties of his ownership in favour of the complainant. As the aforesaid arrangement also did not materialize, they again entered into one another agreement, whereby the accused No.4 had issued cheques in favour of the complainant towards the repayment of the outstanding dues. The said cheques were deposited by the complainant in his Bank for encashment, however, the same was dishonoured, and therefore, the complainant initiated proceedings under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused No.4, and since then he is absconding, and the said proceedings under S.138 are still pending for adjudication. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari submits that it is only after a period of ten years that the complainant has woken up from the slumber and file the present complaint, implicating the present ap