ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent–State.

2. The applicant has preferred the present application seeking bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gondal in Criminal Misc. Application No. 531 of 2025. The present applicant is facing FIR bearing Registration No.11213094250878/2025 registered with Gondal City “B” Division Police Station, District: Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

3. Today, learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to place on record an undertaking to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,63,79,621/- in 12 equal installments. It is submitted that the applicant has already transferred an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to an entity namely “Urvitech” and is ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,13,79,621/- in 12 equal installments.

4. On the last occasion, i.e. 08.04.2026, after hearing the learned advocate for the applicant, this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail; however, learned advocate sought time to obtain instructions as to whether a reasoned order was required. Today, learned advocate Mr. A. A. Zabuawala has submitted that he is inviting a reasoned order.

5. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and there is no whisper in the FIR alleging any specific role against the present applicant; no role is attributed except a mere naming of the applicant. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 23 months, for which no cogent explanation has been forthcoming.

6. It is further submitted that one Mr. Abdula had entered into a business arrangement with the applicant and had paid the alleged amount in advance. Despite receipt of the said amount, it is alleged that the applicant neither exported the goods nor returned the amount. However, according to the applicant, the said amount was to be utilized for procurement of raw materials from third parties, which were to be processed and thereafter exported to Mr. Abdula in the form of food commodities. It is submitted that the applicant had, in fact, transferred the amount to one such supplier on the very same date as stated by Mr. Abdula; however, the bank account of the said supplier came to be frozen, resulting in blockage of the funds. Owing to the failure on the part of the said supplier to provide the raw materials, the applicant could not fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated time.

7. It is further contended that the very act of the applicant placing orders and making payments to third parties demonstrates her bona fide intention to perform the contract and to export the goods in a timely manner. In such circumstances, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the dispute, at the highest, is of a civil nature arising out of a contractual arrangement, and cannot be given a criminal colour so as to attract penal consequences.

8. It is thus argued that the applicant neither had any mala fide intention nor derived any wrongful gain. On the contrary, it is alleged that Mr. Abdula, in collusion with the first informant, has concocted a false story and lodged the FIR with an ulterior motive to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner and appears to be biased against the applicant.

9. It is also contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. The transaction in question is purely commercial in nature, and the day-to-day operations and management of the business were being handled by the husband of the applicant, who has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the present FIR, another FIR pertaining