In cases involving serious economic offenses with large-scale public impact, the primary consideration for granting anticipatory bail is the existence of a prima facie case. Discretionary relief must be exercised with caution, balancing personal liberty against the societal interest in thorough investigation and public welfare.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.

2. The present application is filed for anticipatory bail 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.11208055260013 with DCB Police Station, Rajkot City, dated 15.01.2026 for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, which is reported on 15.01.2026 by one Darshanbhai Vadaliya - complainant stating that he was frequently called by called by the accused at his office situated at University Road in 2019. It was conveyed that money should be invested in their stone crusher firms with promise to get the returns at the rate of 12% per annum. Upon the suggestion of the present applicant and the accused no.1, various relatives including mother, grandfather, uncles, aunts of the complainant have invested money between 2019 to 2024 totaling to the extent of Rs.6,90,67,000/- which was deposited into various bank accounts of the accused and their firms. After making payment of some amount, demand of the complainant and the other family members were flatly refused by the accused and threats were issued to do whatever he can do. The phone calls were also no longer answered by the accused, and they were fled from their respective house, which was resulted into the FIR wherein the accused no.1 namely Amitbhai Bhanvadiya was arrested on 16/01/2026, and the chargesheet was filed on 13/04/2026 against the accused no.1 wherein the present applicant was shown in column no.10 as the suspected accused no.4 to be arrested.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. K. S. Chandrani for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent - State.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Chandrani submitted that looking to the role attributed to the applicant in the chargesheet, four witnesses have alleged that applicant was paid certain amount by way of cash. It is submitted that as per the witness no.46 namely Ashwinbhai Lalakiya the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid in cash, as per the witness no.52 namely Bipinbhai Vikani amount of Rs.85,00,000/- was paid in cash, as per the witness no.76 namely Atulbhai Amrutiya suggests that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash, and as per the witness no.81 namely Vinodrai Kantesariya amount of Rs.4,90,00,000/- was paid in cash. It is submitted that the applicant is the resident of Rajkot city having two children and is similarly situated to the other victims as he also invested the amount which was siphoned off by the accused no.1. It is submitted that investment made by the applicant and his family members reveals that around Rs.33,90,000/- were invested, and the entries of the bank are also part of the record in the present application supporting the said submission. It is submitted that in addition to the said amount as per the balance sheet entries of the 2024-2025 amount of Rs.42,64,960/- was invested in cash which is due from the accused no.1. It is submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, offence was taken place between 23.07.2019 to 27.06.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged after considerable delay of 6 years on 15.01.2026 without giving any satisfactory explanation. It is submitted that the present applicant is neither named in the FIR nor partner in any of the firm nor has utilized any amount for his personal use. It is submitted that allegations leveled against the present applicant by fo