ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this 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. 11192002250913 of 2025, registered with Aslali Police Station, District: Ahmedbad (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections317(3), 317(4), 318(4), 319(2),61(2) as well as Section 54 of the BNS.

2.1 The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was registered alleging a conspiracy between the present Applicant and co- accused Jashvant Thakor to siphon funds derived from cyber fraud using two “mule” bank accounts. That the present Applicant has instructed Jashvant Thakor to receive a total Rs.7,29,302/- in accounts at ADC Bank and IDBI Bank, which were subsequently withdrawn and handed over to the present Applicant.

2.2 The Complainant, Police Sub Inspector, states that Jashvant Thakor worked as driver for the Applicant for a decade and on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, it is alleged that the Applicant managed the bank accounts and provided small commissions to the driver for the use of his accounts in an interstate fraud network spanning multiple States.

2.3 It is submitted that accused No. 1 namely Jashvant Thakor came to be arrested on 11.12.2025, on the date of registration of the FIR, and based on his statement, the Applicant is now being apprehended by the investigating authorities and therefore, the Applicant preferred anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 64/2026, which came to be rejected on 16.01.2026.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

3.2 Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that to show his bona fides, the Applicant is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the disputed amount. He further submits that the provisions of Section 317(4) of the BNS are not attracted since he is not a habitual offender. There is no disclosure of inducement to attract the provisions of Sections 318(4) and

319(2) of the BNS, which even otherwise cannot go together.

3.3 That even if the provision of Section 317(4) of the BNS is attracted, the maximum punishment would be seven years and thus, the Investigating agency ought to have followed the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

3.4 That no independent victims have been examined and that the name of the present Applicant is based on the statement of the co-accused. The Advocate for the Applicant has relied on the judgment of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 865

3.5 Learned Advocate would further submit that the complaint is also lodged before the State of Maharashtra and thus, there cannot be multiple FIRs. Learned Advocate would further contend that the co-accused namely Jashvantbhai S/o Hiraji Rajaji Thakor has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2187/2026 and thus, on the ground of parity, prays to allow the present application.

3.6 That no custodial interrogation is required and he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Solanki Ravibhai Dipubhai and others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (1992) 1 GLR 631 to buttress his argument that