Serious economic offences affecting public trust are classified distinctly, often necessitating custodial interrogation for effective investigation into complex financial trails. Consequently, judicial guidelines limiting arrests for general offences do not provide an automatic entitlement to anticipatory bail in matters involving substantial financial fraud.

ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11192020251085 of 2025, registered with Dholka Town Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (GPID Act).

2. Pursuant to an order dated 18.03.2026 passed by this Court, the Investigation Officer (IO) has placed on record certain facts though learned Additional Public Prosecutor from which, it appears that schemes such as Hari Jewellers Mitra Mandal Suvarna Varsha Bachat Yojna-3, Hari Jewellers Mitra Mandal Suvarna Varsha Bachat Yojna-2 as well as Suvarna Raksha Scheme, were launched by the present applicants only for the purpose of luring the customers so as to participate by making investments in the said schemes floated by the present applicants and thereby, promise to give high returns thereon and thereafter, not returned the money to the investors, for which, present FIR has been lodged against them.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh J. Dave for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for the respondent – State.

4. On 18.03.2026 a detailed order was passed narrating the case of the prosecution as well as the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties in support of their respective case. Having heard and perusing the material on record, following points fall for consideration of the Court:

a) whether the scheme inviting investments falls within the purview Sections 2(d) and 3 of the GPID Act?

b) whether a group of 29 persons can be considered as public at large?

c) whether the GPID Act applies to man-to-man (person-to-person) transaction?

d) even if the GPID Act applies, the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 3 is imprisonment for six years and hence, the decision in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 = MANU/SC/0559/2014 would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case or not?

e) whether transactions falling within Section 25 of the Contract Act would attract the provisions of the GPID Act?

f) whether a bail application in anticipation of arrest at the behest of the wife and mother respectively of the present applicants, without there being any averments in the application with regard as to why the applicants could not prefer affidavits, is maintainable or not?

5. From the submissions canvassed and the material produced on record, the above can be answered in following fashion:

6. The Court deems it apt to deal with the ultimate point viz. Point (f) first, which is to the effect that whether a bail application in anticipation of arrest at the behest of the wife and mother respectively of the present applicants, without there being any averments in the application with regard as to why the applicants could not prefer affidavits, is maintainable or not, inasmuch as the application is totally mute on the said aspect and it cannot be said that the wife/mother of the applicants has any personal knowledge with regard to the transactions in question. Further, there is silence as to why the applicants herein could not file the affidavit. This Court would have refused to entertain