Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191028230341 of 2023 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jeet J. Bhatt appearing for the applicant submitted that present applicant is falsely enroped in the offence in absence of any iota of evidence and except on the basis of statement of a third party with whom the applicant was having enmity and present applicant has also lodged a complaint against those persons and relying on the statement of those persons, the present applicant has been made a scapegoat. Further, present applicant has nothing to do with the offence as present applicant is not a beneficiary of any alleged amount. The applicant has neither opened the bank account nor has identified anyone. He has also not encashed any FDRs. or forged any alleged fixed deposit receipts of the Society. The applicant is neither connected with "Siddhi Vinayak Traders" or Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, or Liquidator of Classic Cooperative Bank and whatever allegations are leveled, same are against three persons who are involved in the illegal activity of money laundering. Further, Shlok Pathak is an old acquaintance with the present applicant who has defrauded the applicant earlier and applicant has also approached the Cyber Crime Branch and police has also recorded the statement. Rs. 3 Crore is duped by said Shlok Pathak and present applicant has nothing to do with either Shlok Pathak nor Purvang Trivedi nor Archan Trivedi. As per the case of prosecution, to enrope the present applicant, these three persons are star-witnesses of the case of prosecution and present applicant enroped in an offence in aid of such people who have treated as witness rather than accused. There is no iota of evidence which can link the present applicant with the alleged offence. On the contrary, these three persons have duped the applicant. Nonetheless, the present applicant has nothing to do with Siddhi Vinayak Traders or any account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders but Archan, Purvang and Shlok are the beneficiaries of the amount from the account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders from which amount has been transferred in the accounts of Shlok, Archan and Purvang. Merely because the said persons have enmity with the present applicant, they have falsely enroped the present applicant and stated that these three persons have withdrawn the amount in cash and given to the present applicant. Except this, no any evidence against the present applicant. Further, the applicant has nothing to do with any of the firms namely Craig Shelly. And whatever amount is transferred in various companies, present applicant is not connected with any of the companies in any manner. Present applicant is completely innocent and he has not played any role and is not a beneficiary of single rupee of the alleged fraud whereas the officers of the Bank and Liquidator who have actually committed fraud have not been made accused in the present case. Hence, he has requested to allow the present application.

3. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application and stated that large scale scam involving public money has been committed by the present applicant in conspiracy with co-accused and hence, thorough interrogation and even custodial interrogation is required to unearth the truth and investigate the matter. In view of above, as the accused are absconding and amount is yet to be recovered, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by both the sides.

5. In the present case, complaint is filed at the instance of the Liquidator of Classic Cooperative Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) wherein it is alleged that against Siddhi Vinayak Traders and other persons of the Bank of Baroda, Naroda Branch, Bank of India, Sarkhej Branch and other responsible Bank Officers and during the investigation, if involvement of any other person is found, who have during the period of 17.08.2022 to 31.03.2023, in the account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders, by hatching criminal conspiracy and fabricating the documents and using forged letter head of Liquidator and counterfeiting the stamp and by forging signature of Liquidator from Bank of India, Sarkhej Branch, two Fixed Deposit Receipts of Classic Cooperative Bank Ltd. tune of Rs. 2.8 Crores (One of Rs. 1.58 Crore and second of Rs. 58 lakh) came to be withdrawn prematurely and said amount is transferred in the account of third party "Siddhi Vinayak Traders" maintained with Bank of Baroda, Naroda Branch. The complaint is filed on 13.05.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5.1. Perusing the record as well as the investigation papers, prima facie, it appears that forged Fixed Deposit Receipts of Classic Cooperative Bank, which is in liquidation, have been encashed. It is needless to say that the said amount is hard earned money of the depositors, investors/members of the cooperative Bank. The said amount came to be deposited at the instance of Liquidator as winding up proceeding of society is going on. . During the investigation, it is also found that to invest the amount in FDR, commission came to be paid to one Bharatbhai and Sattarbhai who are employees of Classic Cooperative Bank Ltd. and said persons by hatching conspiracy and in connivance with the accused persons had approached the Bank of India and on 21.09.2022, amount of Rs. 1,50,20,527/-and then on 17.02.2022, an amount of Rs. 58,28,729/-thus in total Rs. 2,08,49,986/-FDRs. have been prematurely withdrawn. During the investigation it is found that as per the rules and regulations of the Bank, the said amount is required to be credited in the account of Classic Cooperative Bank (in liquidation). However, forged FDRs. were prepared and then forging signatures of the Liquidator and using counterfeited rubber stamp, prematurely the amount is withdrawn that too transferred in third party account i.e. Siddhi Vinayak Traders, whose proprietor is Mayadevi Ramprasad Kori. It is pertinent to note that during the investigation it reveals that no such firm viz. Siddhi Vinayak Traders does exist. No any KYC or any documentary proof or evidence is found with regard to opening of bank account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders, no such partners namely Mayadevi Ramprasad Kori is also found. From the inception it is found that, firstly the FDRs. are forged; secondly prematurely withdrawn by using forged signature and stamp of the Liquidator and thirdly, amount is encashed in the third party account i.e. in the account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders. That, no such firm does exist and is dummy firm and entire transaction has been done with bogus/ dummy firms and ultimately amount withdrawn in cash.

5.2. Further, it reveals from the investigation papers that the amount deposited in such bogus/dummy firm is transferred in accounts of various companies like (I) Manish Enterprise, (ii) Shree Enterprise, (iii) Lonely DMC Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, in the joint account of (iv) Purvang Trivedi and Atmja Trivedi, (v) R.P. Impex, (vi) T.P. Trading Link, (vii) Craig Shelly, (viii) M.R. Enterprise, Mumbai, (ix) Venus Enterprise, Mumbai, (x) Shree Sava Jewelers, (xi) Krupa Enterprise and (xii) Capital India Finance.

5.3. This Court is aware that at the time of deciding bail application, detailed examination and appreciation of evidence is not permissible however, when the learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted that the present applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is only enroped in the offence on the basis of statement of third person only, who had earlier acquaintance with the present applicant and those persons have duped the present applicant, this Court has perused the material pondered over the said arguments. Going through the investigation papers and statements recorded during the investigation by the Investigating Officer, prima facie, it appears that sham and fictitious financial transaction has taken place that too in bogus firm. Many firms are also dummy wherein amount is siphoned in systematic manner. Nonetheless, some amount is also converted into foreign currency also. Going through the evidence it further appears that some of the persons who are connected with same transaction are in jail and they are also enroped in another offence of GST scam. Considering the aforesaid facts, prima facie, it appears that this is a large scale conspiracy of siphoning the public money, which was lying as a deposit of one cooperative Bank's account, which is now in liquidation. Nonetheless, going through the statements and evidence of accounts of Shlok Pathak, Purvang Trivedi and Archan Trivedi, at the behest of present accused, they have opened the account, got transferred the amount in the said accounts and after cash withdrawal, said amount is also handed over to the present applicant. Nonetheless, at the instance of the present applicant, they have acted and in this regard, call details and scree-shots of such transactions of Purvang Trivedi, Archan Trivedi and Shlok Pathak are also collected by the investigating. Prima facie, it appears that present applicant is in live contact with the said persons including Bharat Patel who is miscreant of bank officials. Even considering the CDR also, it appears that in a very systematic manner, public money is siphoned and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Present offence is an economic offence and committed with eye of personal gain which requires to be visited differently.

5.4. Considering the aforesaid fact and investigation papers, prima facie involvement of the present applicant is revealed and with pre-planned manner and to play safe game, he has filed the application before the Cyber Crime Police Station in advance and blamed three persons who have acted at the behest of the present applicant in the present offence. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence and merely due to enmity with three persons namely Shlok Pathak, Purvang Trivedi and Archan Trivedi, the applicant has been enroped in the offence. At the first blush, said argument appears to be innocuous but going through the material of investigating agency, said argument appears farfetched and devoid of any merit. It is needless to say that in conspiracy, direct evidence would be hardly available. The Court has to consider the circumstances based on material and it is required to be inferred as conspiracy is not hatched in open. Conspiracy is a continuous offence and subsists till it is executed. Herein accused person is also facing the charge of conspiracy. Other persons are also involved in such type of financial scam like GST and other offences. That, during the commission of the present offence, constant contact of bankers and other accused are also revealed from the CDRs. The said fact is nothing but prima facie appears to be an eye-wash and this Court is of the considered view that prima facie involvement of the applicant is revealed as the applicant in calculated and pre-planned manner hatched the criminal conspiracy and committed the entire scam. Going through the investigation papers prima facie it appears that large scale conspiracy being hatched in pre-planned manner to execute the plan dummy account of Siddhi Vinayak Traders is opened and then fraudulent FDRs. of the cooperative Bank, which is in liquidation and winding up proceedings are going on. Then, systematically, transferred the amount in various dummy accounts and subsequently, credited in such accounts and withdrawn in cash. Further, going through the material collected during the investigation it also reveals that at the behest of the present applicant, amount is withdrawn in cash and given to the applicant. Such huge amount is transferred by using parallel banking system i.e. Angadia service and that too in cash. Such huge amount is required to be traced and recovered, which is a mammoth task for the investigating agency and even for that also, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

5.5. Further, considering the allegation made in the complaint, for qualitative investigation, the presence of applicant and custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, prima facie, it appears that accused has played active role and qualitative investigation is necessary in the matter. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307 [LQ/SC/2023/727 ;] , wherein para 19 read as under :

"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice.

The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."

5.5.1. It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987)2 GLR 1316 [LQ/GujHC/1990/176] SC, wherein, para 5 reads thus:

"5. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community."

5.5.2. Reference is also required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Poply vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2003 SC Vol.90 2751 wherein it has been held in paragraph 382 as follows:

"The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye, unmindful of the damage; done to the National Economy and National Interest."

6. Further, considering the allegation made in the complaint and aforesaid fact and for the qualitative investigation, the presence of applicant is required and custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, prima facie it appears that accused has played active role and qualitative investigation is necessary in the matter.

6.1. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white collar and socio economic offence, this Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 438 and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, This court is considered of view that, the present offence is committed very smartly and very planned and methodically which is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information. In such circumstances, when investigation is in preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted, it may hamper the investigation and to collect the material and more information, and to find out the involvement of another persons, custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187, [LQ/SC/1997/1203] (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 [LQ/SC/2005/221 ;] and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 [LQ/SC/2019/1387] , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows, present applicant is required to be dismissed:

"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights-safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.

Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.

The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".

Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation".

6.2. This court has also kept in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 [LQ/SC/2010/1322] . But, going through the material very carefully available against the accused it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with view to humiliating or tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in the case of Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, [LQ/SC/2012/281] Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:

"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."

6.3. The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order under Section 438 is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society.

7. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, as applicant is actively involved in the offence, I have absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order of anticipatory bail before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Yet the amount involved in the offence is to be traced out and recovered and other co-accused are also absconding.

7.1. Further, the present applicant-accused is involved in white collar socio-economic offence which constitute a class apart and needs to be visited with a different approach. The economic offences adversely affect the economic and social fabric of the country. In such circumstances also, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would frustrate the very purpose of qualitative investigation.

8. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.