ORDER : A.Y. KOGJE, J. These three Criminal Misc. Applications are filed for cancellation of regular bail/anticipatory bail granted to the accused of C.R No. I-46/2017 registered with Rajkot Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the allegations made in the FIR filed by one Kaushalkumar Bhurabhai Patel is that he is running a laboratory as in the capacity of laboratory technician and came in contact with co-accused, who called upon the complainant to invest in residential housing project to the extent of 16% of 33% of the part of the co-accused in the entire project consisting of 75% flats, out of which, initially the complainant gained profit. Thereafter, he was called upon again to make further investment and as the complainant had reposed believing rest and faith in all the accused persons he transferred huge amount of money for the purpose of investment, out of which, plot of land was purchased and as there was slump in market some further investment was invited from another person and as a part of temporary arrangement the plot was transferred only for a period of two months and in the name of new investor. It is further alleged that subsequently, behind the back of the complainant the co-accused conspired together and disposed of the entire project to three parties and earned huge profit and did not share the profit with the complainant, as a result of which, the FIR came to be registered. 3. The respondents herein filed anticipatory bail/regular bail before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot and the same came to be allowed, which is now being challenged on behalf of the State. 4. The learned APP submits that the discretion ought not to have been exercised when the investigation was in progress. Moreover, the offence is of a serious nature, where the transaction of large amount of money has taken place and the complainant is suffering loss of amount to the tune of more than Rs. 80 lacs. It is further submitted that not only the offence is of a serious nature, but it also has affected the public. It is submitted that when the investigation was at a sensitive stage, considering the gravity and that the respondents being influential would influence the ongoing investigation. 5. 80 lacs. It is further submitted that not only the offence is of a serious nature, but it also has affected the public. It is submitted that when the investigation was at a sensitive stage, considering the gravity and that the respondents being influential would influence the ongoing investigation. 5. Having heard the learned APP and having gone through the record of the case papers, including the allegations made in the FIR, the affidavit of the Investigating Agency as well as the impugned order, the Court is of the view that the nature of allegations in the FIR reflects that the dispute revolving around the account, which according to the complainant, is entitle to receive as a part of his profit towards the investment made by him. 6. It is evident in the FIR itself that in the first investigation the complainant had actually profited from his such investment. From the perusal of the order impugned the Court finds that sufficient reasonings are alloted for exercising the discretion. This Court also finds that the investigation is based on the transaction pertinent to money and the documents, the custodial interrogation may not be absolutely essential. The Sessions Court has also after recording the reasonings has concluded that the nature of offence is more of a civil nature and therefore, proceeded to exercise discretion in favour of the respondents. The Court finds that the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail has imposed sufficient conditions so as to ensure availability of the respondents accused for the purpose of investigation as well as for the purpose of trial. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The applications deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected.