Granting anticipatory bail in economic offences must be performed sparingly. The court must balance personal liberty with societal interest, prioritizing the integrity of the investigation. When serious prima facie evidence exists and custodial interrogation is necessary for discovery of facts, pre-arrest relief should be refused.

ORDER :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 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 FIR being C.R. No. 11196008250298 of 2025, registered with the J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) and 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the respondent – State.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavik P. Shah for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence in question as there is no prima facie case against the applicant; and that no specific role is attributed to the applicant by the complainant and there is nothing on record against the applicant which shows that the applicant had committed an offence as alleged by the complainant; and that bare reading of the impugned FIR would suggest that no offence under any of the sections invoked by the police is made out; and that different sections of the BNS is wrongly incorporated to show that the offence is grave and serious in nature; and that if the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer is taken into consideration, it suggests that total Rs.18 lakhs has been deposited in the account against the loan process and not for any gold purchased; and that the amount which is given by the complainant for purchasing the gold is already fulfilled and 100 gm of gold is already handed over to the complainant; and that there is no any role played by the applicant in the offence in question and the applicant is not involved in the transaction made between the co-accused and the complainant; and that even taking into consideration the impugned FIR, it is very clear that from the gold business, the complainant is in direct touch with the co-accused and he is doing business with the co-accused; and that the applicant nothing to do with the said transaction.

3.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the applicant is an innocent one and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR; and that the learned Sessions Court failed to test the FIR allegations on the settled principle that at the stage of anticipatory bail also, the Court is required to examine as to whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are even prima facie disclosed and whether arrest is truly warranted in the facts of the case; and that the allegations stated in the FIR do not disclose a clear, definite or credible factual foundation to infer a real intention to commit the offence; and that there is no risk of absconding of the applicant; and that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary; and that the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. He has submitted that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Megha Chitaliya for the State has opposed this application and has submitted that the applicant is directly involved in the offence in question.

4.1 It is submitted that there are eight other FIRs registered against the applicant, the details of which are as under :