Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 682 (GUJ)

Manan Hemendrabhai Bhimpuria v. State of Gujarat

2020-08-13

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2020
ORDER : 1. Present Criminal Misc. Application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being C.R. No.I-02 of 2020 lodged before CID (Crime) Ahmedabad Zone dated 6.3.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution basically in a very summarized form is that the present applicant-accused along with other investors have induced the complainant and the other persons to invest money in share market and in lieu of such investment, sizable amount of return is guaranteed and thereby, by such inducement, secured money from the complainant and other persons and utilized the same for his private purpose and thereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating and the offences, as alleged in the complaint. Detailed narration is reflected in the FIR, but with a view to avoid unnecessary burden, entire narration is not incorporated at length in the present order. 3. In response to this complaint, on apprehension of being arrested, Criminal Misc. Application No.3043 of 2020 was filed before learned City and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.6.2020. As a result of this, the applicant-accused has approached this Court by way of the present application. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Jal S. Unawala appearing with learned advocate Mr. Jay J. Jani for the applicant has vehemently submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence, but on the contrary, a serious attempt is made to convert the civil dispute into a criminal offence and to substantiate the same, learned senior counsel has submitted that some preface is necessary as the case is having a peculiar background of facts. Mr. Unwala has submitted that the present applicant and the complainant, i.e. Shri Pranav Shah, are knowing to each other since about 30 years. Mr. Unwala has submitted that the present applicant and the complainant, i.e. Shri Pranav Shah, are knowing to each other since about 30 years. On account of this long standing relation, on 28.3.2017, a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) is arrived at between the applicant and the complainant with respect to a business deal related to investment in stock market and a commercial decision is taken by the complainant to enter into the MoU, whereby the applicant was supposed to develop and install a trading software (38+ Modules), which was mutually agreed upon and fixed at Rs.2.44 crore, which is the monopoly of the present applicant, and in that respect, complainant Shri Pranav Shah had given a guarantee to give Rs.2.44 crore to the present applicant and in response thereto, 12% return was expected to be achieved by the complainant, which was purely on commercial and business deal. According to Mr. Unwala, after execution of the aforesaid MoU, the complainant gave 5 post-dated cheques, totaling around Rs.2.44 crores, as a part of stipulation of the MoU and one Mr. Milan Shah had also singed the said MoU as a witness. This was a corresponding act, according to Mr. Unwala, to be undertaken by the accused as well as the complainant. But, according to the applicant, when the cheques were presented, the same came to be dis-honoured due to ‘STOP PAYMENT’. This return of cheques on account of ‘STOP PAYMENT’ has resulted into filing of a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 438 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as filing of a summary suit, in which, a decree also came to be passed by the competent Court in favour of the applicant. So, according to Mr. Unwala, there is a clear breach on the part of the complainant in not honouring the MoU and not a single penny is given out of the aforesaid Rs.2.44 crore to the applicant. It has been submitted by Mr. Unwala that it has been revealed by the applicant that after execution of the MoU for Rs.2.44 crore, this very complainant has correspondingly entered into another MoU with one Shri Dishit M. Nathwani for a sum of Rs.3 crore and with the same assurance of guaranteed return of 12% by end of 45 months. So, according to Mr. Unwala that it has been revealed by the applicant that after execution of the MoU for Rs.2.44 crore, this very complainant has correspondingly entered into another MoU with one Shri Dishit M. Nathwani for a sum of Rs.3 crore and with the same assurance of guaranteed return of 12% by end of 45 months. So, according to Mr. Unwala, purely a business deal is undertaken between the applicant and the present complainant and on the contrary, by seeking assurance of 12% guaranteed return from the present applicant and then executing another MoU of R.3 crore with a third party. So, this, at the best, is a breach of the MoU and on the contrary, it has been submitted that the complainant has not given any amount out of the said Rs.2.44 crore to the present applicant, which has resulted into a serious consequence for the applicant, in which he was constrained to drag into a litigation by filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments and also filing of a summary suit, as stated above. 5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unawala has submitted that this disruption of business deal pursuant to the MoU was the subject matter of scrutiny on more than one occasion before the SOG Gandhinagar, in which after proper scrutiny, it was clearly opined in a report that the dispute amongst the parties is of a civil nature. Though twice the same was examined, but surprisingly, on third occasion, on a general application filed by the complainant, again a movement is made whereby the applicant is seriously apprehending his arrest and as such, this is nothing but an attempt of criminalizing the civil dispute and surprisingly, the complainant has so far neither filed any suit for damages against the present applicant nor any action is taken for any breach of the MoU if committed by the present applicant. 6. Apart from the above, learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala has submitted that on previous occasion, the present applicant was constrained to file anticipatory bail application first before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and then before this Court in the form of Criminal Misc. 6. Apart from the above, learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala has submitted that on previous occasion, the present applicant was constrained to file anticipatory bail application first before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and then before this Court in the form of Criminal Misc. Application No.15667 of 2019 in connection with the said general application No.56/2019 filed by the complainant before CID Crime, Economic Offence Wing (EOW) for the same grievance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and while examining the aspect of anticipatory bail, when the said matter came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench on 19.8.2019, it was categorically stated that the applicant was being called only to give statement and till that day, no FIR was registered at all and it was specifically assured that the applicant will not be arrested till registration of the FIR and after the registration of FIR, necessary time will be given to him. Now, after this order dated 19.8.2019, the applicant had thoroughly cooperated with the investigating officer and not only his statement was recorded but on 28.8.2019, detailed reply in the form of statement is given by the applicant to the Police Officer in charge of Economic Cell, CID Crime, Gandhinagar, which is also part of the record of the present application and as such, when the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation so far, and this being at the best a case of breach of MoU, the same would entail civil consequence and not the criminal. Apart from that, even a further reply was also given on 4.4.2020 to the Detective Police Inspector, CID Crime, Gandhinagar, which is reflecting on page 339/A of the application compilation and as such, when such kind of cooperation is extended so far by the applicant and the applicant is not likely to misuse the liberty in any form and further the present background requires no custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail may be provided to the applicant since arrest of a citizen is having far-reaching consequence. Further, the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. 7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Further, the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. 7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unawala has drawn the attention of the Court to several documentary evidence attached to the application and thereby has submitted further that to set aside the decree passed in favour of the present applicant, the complainant has moved an application before the Court concerned for setting aside the decree and such application before the competent Court is pending. From such application, reflecting on page 285 of the application compilation, with a view to avoid explanation of delay, assertion is made in para 12 that since there was huge loss to him, he was not in a mood to proceed further with the MoU and refused to act further and this is clearly indicating the fact that on the contrary, there is a deliberate breach of the MoU by the complainant himself executed with the present applicant and as such, neither any offence is committed nor any attempt is made by the present applicant against the complainant and further more, it is only the very complainant who has filed this general application and no other person has come forward to lodge any complaint and as such, in this peculiar background of facts, granting of anticipatory bail to the applicant would be on the contrary desirous. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unawala, in addition to the aforesaid oral submission, has also given a written submission pointing out the gist of the background in a summary form. The same is reproduced hereinafter :- - That, the applicant – orig. accused, begs to file the present written submissions in form of a short note as directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.07.2020 in the captioned Criminal Misc. Application. - That, the present written submissions/short note is based on two aspects i.e. i. On Merits of the case ii. Court proceedings, investigation by the CID Crime, and the conduct of the Applicant herein, pursuant to the written complaint being general application 56 of 2019 before CID Crime, which is very relevant for the purpose of the present anticipatory bail application and which goes to show as to why the Applicant herein, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. i. On merits of the case. 1. That, the genesis of the impugned FIR and the entire dispute is on and MOU dated 28.03.2017 between the Applicant and the complainant herein. i. On merits of the case. 1. That, the genesis of the impugned FIR and the entire dispute is on and MOU dated 28.03.2017 between the Applicant and the complainant herein. This MOU has not been challenged till this date and it has been admitted and stated in the impugned FIR by the complainant himself. [Annexure B/ Pg. 7] Relevant conditions of the MOU - First Para of the MOU wherein it is stated that the applicant and the complainant know each other since 3 decades, and after series of meetings and multiple discussions they agree to make a business deal. - Condition no. 1 regarding 12 % annual return. - Condition no. 5 – it is submitted that only shares/ securities can be traded through Demat and Trading A/ c and monetary transactions get settled through the bank A/C only. - Condition no.8 whereby the price of the software was mutually agreed at 2.44 crores, and cheques for the same were issued. It is pertinent to mention that the value fixed was for the price of the software and not for the trading purposes which is reflected in condition no.8 [Annex. B/PG. 8] 2. MOU between the complainant and Mr. Dishit Nathwani [Annex. C/ Pg. 11] - Same trading software further sold for 3 crores to dishit nathwani - The wordings of the MOU are even copied from the MOU with the Applicant and here the complainant acts as a developer of the software. [Annex. C/ pg. 13] 3. Proceedings under Section 138/ NI Act, initiated upon dishonor of cheques as stated in the condition no.8 of the MOU. [Annex C – notices & replies, Annex. E – Criminal complaints] 4. S.O.G files closure report in written complaint preferred by the complainant herein before Santej police station [Annex. H/Pg. 163], and written complaint preferred by the applicant herein before LCB, G’nagar. [Annex. I pg. 171/ Intimation letter given by S.O.G, Annex. R.2/ Pg. 383 entire report] on the ground that disputes are of civil nature and 138 proceedings are pending. - S.O.G report is not challenged further by the complainant. 5. General application 56/2019 filed after S.O.G report before CID Crime [same authority of registered impugned FIR]. This complaint was not culminated into an FIR. [Summons at Annex. J – pg. 172] 6. Ex parte decree in Special Summary Suit no. - S.O.G report is not challenged further by the complainant. 5. General application 56/2019 filed after S.O.G report before CID Crime [same authority of registered impugned FIR]. This complaint was not culminated into an FIR. [Summons at Annex. J – pg. 172] 6. Ex parte decree in Special Summary Suit no. 07 of 2019, whereby complainant was ordered to pay Rs 2.39 crores with 6% interest to the applicant herein. [Annex. M / Pg. 283] 7. On 24.02.2020, i.e. 7 days before the FIR the complainant files application for setting aside decree in the summary suit proceedings wherein, he categorically states at point.12 [pg. 292] that he does not wish to continue further with the MOU as there was a huge “loss” even further in point no.8 [pg.291] he maintains the stand that the applicant herein committed a huge “loss” upon the amount “invested”. Now, suddenly after 7-8 days in the Impugned FIR he alleges the said offences. 8. That, In the Impugned FIR itself he says - The complainant read and signed the MOU. [pg. 6F] - On [pg. 6F at the bottom] complainant states that the applicant herein guaranteed a return of 12% and on [pg. 6j] he states regarding applicant not giving doubled profits. - On [pg.6I] the he categorically states that a “loss” is committed by the applicant herein. 9. That, on 22.03.2017, due to cordial relations between the applicant and the complainant, the applicant installed the software on the laptop of the complainant herein and intimated the same vide email dated 22.03.2017. Email communication is annexed at [PG. 410 to pg.412] ii. Court proceedings, investigation by the CID Crime, and the conduct of the Applicant herein, pursuant to the written complaint being general application 56 of 2019 before CID Crime, which is very relevant for the purpose of the present anticipatory bail application and which goes to show as to why the Applicant herein, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 1. That, Summons issued by the CID Crime on 23.05.2019 pursuant to general application no. 56/2019 filed by the complainant. [Annex.J/pg 172] - If the summons dated 11.03.2020 [pg.336] issued pursuant to the impugned FIR is perused it is by the same authority and more particularly the same investigating officer. This goes to show that the very authority who has registered the Impugned FIR i.e. CID Crime, has been conducting investigation since 23.05.2019. 2. 56/2019 filed by the complainant. [Annex.J/pg 172] - If the summons dated 11.03.2020 [pg.336] issued pursuant to the impugned FIR is perused it is by the same authority and more particularly the same investigating officer. This goes to show that the very authority who has registered the Impugned FIR i.e. CID Crime, has been conducting investigation since 23.05.2019. 2. That, on 18.07.2019, the applicant herein prefers anticipatory bail application in general application no. 56/2019 before the Ld. Sessions Court, Gandhinagar. - On 20.07.2019 I/O’s affidavit [pg.188] in anticipatory bail application stating that investigation is still going on [pg.189]. - On 31.07.2019 Bail rejected as investigation was still going on. 3. That, the Applicant herein approached this Hon’ble Court seeking anticipatory bail in general application no.56/2019 and this Hon’ble court vide order dated 19.08.2019 passed in C.R.M.A 15667 OF 2019 was pleased to observe:- - Applicant’s willingness to cooperate with the investigating officer. - Time will be given to the Applicant after the registration of FIR. 4. That, pursuant to the undertaking given to this Hon’ble Court about co- operating with the investigation on or about 28.08.2019 the applicant herein gave his statement before the CID Crime, and further gave his written reply running into about 47 pages explaining the dispute in detail. [Annex. L/PG 209] - The applicant herein has given his statement before the investigating officer and even a detailed written reply. This goes to show that he is ever willing to cooperate with the investigation - The applicant has already given his detailed statement and reply before the same authority who has registered the impugned FIR back on 28.08.2019, it is stated and submitted that there is no need to secure his presence for investigating him once again. - General application no.56/2019 was not culminated into an FIR. That the only development between the Impugned FIR and the general application no.56/2019 is the ex parte decree in favour of the applicant herein. 5. That, a summons dated 11.03.2020, was issued by the investigating officer pursuant to the impugned FIR. [Annex. - General application no.56/2019 was not culminated into an FIR. That the only development between the Impugned FIR and the general application no.56/2019 is the ex parte decree in favour of the applicant herein. 5. That, a summons dated 11.03.2020, was issued by the investigating officer pursuant to the impugned FIR. [Annex. O/ pg.336] - On 20.03.2020, the applicant herein replies to the summons dated 11.03.2020 seeking time due to the on-going pandemic and alongwith it tendered the reply [at Annex-L] given in general application 56/2019, and also ex parte decree and the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.R.M.A 15667/2019 whereby the petitioner herein was to be given necessary time after registration of FIR. - This conduct of the applicant exemplifies that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. 9. By referring to the aforesaid contents, learned senior counsel Mr. Unawala has also relied upon following two decisions delivered by the Apex Court:- (1) In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011 (1) GLH 11 ; (2) Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2019 dated 3.1.2019 After referring to the said decisions, a request is made that this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant in view of this peculiar background of facts. 10. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has vehemently contended that it appears that this is a systemic design adopted by the applicant to commit cheating with the complainant and further has submitted that from the emails which are attached to the application, the applicant appears to have give a big and pompous projection about his business structure and thereby made to induce the complainant to enter into the MoU and therefore, this being an anticipatory bail application, since the investigation is going on, no discretion be exercised without considering the aforesaid voluminous documents in which there is a decree in favour of the applicant in the summary suit as well as a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the applicant against the complainant. Mr. Shah has not much agitated and left the matter to the discretion of this Court. Since the dispute essentially between the complainant and the applicant. 11. Mr. Shah has not much agitated and left the matter to the discretion of this Court. Since the dispute essentially between the complainant and the applicant. 11. In support of the submission made by learned APP Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani appearing with learned advocate Mr. Rahul R. Dholakiya, on behalf of the complainant, i.e. Shri Pranav Shah, and in aid and assistance of learned APP Mr. Shah, has vehemently contended that this is a systematic design adopted by the applicant to commit an offence against the complainant and in fact, on account of this act, the complainant is placed in a precarious position and one Mr. Nathwani has been induced to part with the sizable amount of Rs.50 lakh. Mr. Lakhani has drawn attention of the Court to certain documents from page 397 onwards and has submitted that though an impression is given that the applicant is having various branches in various States across the country, but no such offices are available and in fact, by giving scenario about his business structure, serious attempt is made to induce the complainant to enter into the MoU and has in fact, duped the complainant and therefore, this is nothing but a clear breach of trust committed by the applicant and ingredients of the offences, as alleged, are very much visible from the act of the applicant. 12. Learned senior counsel Mr. Lakhani has further submitted that in fact, what has been assured is to implant software for the purpose of trading in share market. But, there is no software at all found during the course of preliminary investigation. Apart from that, even the applicant has been parted with laptops which are also with the applicant, but no software has been inserted since in fact the same is actually not at all in existence. Mr. Lakhani has submitted that apparently, it looks like a business deal, having been failed, but, in fact, it is not of a civil nature only. There is a clear criminal intent visible behind the act of the applicant and therefore, no lenient view may be taken and this is not a fit case in which any discretion is to be exercised. Apart from that, Mr. Lakhani has filed detailed affidavit-in-reply to oppose this application and along with that, has also submitted written bullet points to persuade the Court not to exercise the discretion. Apart from that, Mr. Lakhani has filed detailed affidavit-in-reply to oppose this application and along with that, has also submitted written bullet points to persuade the Court not to exercise the discretion. Such bullet points are reproduced hereinafter:- “ The applicant had lured the first informant and others by making tall claims about him having offices in 6 states and opening offices in 2 other states (Page 401) and has a large staff of employees (Page 405) which he himself has denied during deposition in proceedings u/3.138 of the NI Act (Page 389 7th line from bottom) - The applicant had further enticed the first informant by claiming to have relations with who’s who of the country like Mukesh Ambani, Arun Jaitley etc. (Page 400). - The applicant claims to have developed specialized trading software (Para 4.4 of memo) and Para 8 of the MOU dated 28.03.2017 (Page 8) and in lieu of the same, took cheques worth Rs.2.44 crores. In reality no such software ever existed or has been the light of the day as per the report of the Investigating officer in a complaint filed by the applicant himself (Page 388). Such report was suppressed by the applicant before this Hon’ble Court. - In fact, till date the applicant has not placed an iota of material pointing towards the existence of such a software either before this Hon’ble Court or in 138 proceedings (Page 392 9th line from bottom) or the Police Authority (Page 388). - The applicant promised a return of 12% on investment in the MOU dated 28.03.2017 (Page 7) which is also against the SEBI Rules & Regulations (Page 9 Clause 19). - The applicant promised a return of 12% on investment in the MOU dated 28.03.2017 (Page 7) which is also against the SEBI Rules & Regulations (Page 9 Clause 19). - As per deposition in 138 proceedings, the applicant claims to be a Research Analyst (Page 389 4th line from top) for which registration is must as per SEBI Rules & Regulations (Page 6 Clause 3), in MOU he claims to maintain a Portfolio on behalf of the first informant (Page 8 clause 7) for which too registration is must as per SEBI Rules & Regulations (page 2 Clause 3) and in his emails he acts as an Investment Advisor (Page 397) for which too registration is must as per SEBI Rules & Regulations (Page 4 Clause 3) - As per the terms of MOU dated 28.03.2017, the first informant bought 3 laptops (Clause 2 Page 7) which were to be kept in custody of the applicant (Clause 3 page 7) and upon termination of MOU the same wee to remain with the applicant (Clause 14 Page 9). Therefore, the email (Page 410) is yet another such claim made by the applicant (like in other emails) about him having installed such software in laptop though the same was never shown to the first informant. - MOU (Page 12) dated 01.09.2017 between first informant and Dishit Nathwani has in fact has never been acted upon and no transaction of any sorts including monetary has taken place as no such software was ever developed by the applicant as claimed by him. In fact, the applicant was always aware of such MOU as a Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) of the same is also marked to him in the email placed on record by the applicant himself (page 11) - In the facts of the case, there is a need for custodial interrogation for full, fair and free investigation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Court in the case of CBI v. Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187 .” 13. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the parties and having gone through the detailed material on record attached to the application, following few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court before arriving at any decision in the present application:- (1) First of all, it apparently appears from the record that the first MoU was executed by the complainant with the present applicant for a sum of Rs.2.44 crore, as a business deal, in which, according to the complainant, the applicant-accused guaranteed generation of 12% annual return after the end of the year. This MoU dated 28.3.2017 reflecting on page 7, is also reflecting that as against the investment of Rs.2.44 crore in the software infrastructure, the applicant was supposed to install 38 + software for trading and business of stock market and in response to this, investment of Rs.2.44 crore, 5 cheques have been issued by the complainant, reflecting on page 8 of the application compilation. Now, these cheques upon presentation have been dis-honured, which, in fact, is not in dispute and the said dis-honour of cheque is on account of ‘STOP PAYMENT’ by the complainant himself. If this is to be compared with paragraph 12 on page 292, which is a part of Misc. Application filed in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalol in Summary suit in which decree is passed. Same would give some more clear picture. While requesting the Court to set aside the decree, an assertion is made in para 12 that, since there was huge loss, the applicant, i.e. complainant, was not in a mood to proceed further with the MoU and refused to act further. The same is reproduced hereinafter:- “12. The applicant submits that since there was huge loss the applicant was not mood to further proceed with the MoU and refused act further.” This statement on oath is also to some extent indicative of the fact that ‘STOP PAYMENT’ was made by the complainant on account of which he suffered some huge loss, which further indicates that the applicant undisputedly has not received any amount out of the said Rs.2.44 crore, as agreed upon, in response to the MoU from this complainant. (2) Apart from the above, it further appears that commercial decision is taken by the complainant that by entering into the MoU with the present applicant with guaranteed return of 12% at the end of the year, he entered into further MoU with one another Shri Dishit M. Nathwani for a sum of Rs.3 crore, in which the complainant has taken a guarantee of generating 12% annual return on the same after end of 45 months. Said MoU is reflecting on page 12 of the application compilation. So, on one hand, the complainant entered into the MoU with the present applicant and further MoU as a commercial deal is being entered into by him with another person, as named above. So, this appears to be a commercial & calculated deal between the parties and which has resulted into filing of a complaint by the present applicant on account of breach and also summary suit against the original complainant and one fact which is not possible to be ignored is that here is a case in which the complainant has not taken any legal action against the applicant either for breach of the conditions of the MoU or for seeking damages and undisputedly, no civil action is taken so far. It also further appears that on third occasion, an FIR is being persuaded to be lodged particularly by the same authority and more particularly by the same investigating officer. (3) Apart from the above, one another circumstance, which is not possible to be unnoticed by the Court, is that there is a clear circumstance which is not even disputed by the complainant that the original complainant, i.e. Shri Pranav Shah, initially gave a complaint to Satej Police Station on 29.4.2018, which complaint was sent by Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar on 29.5.2018 to LCB and it has been asserted that on 10.7.2018, a statement of investigating officer was recorded to the effect that the disputes are of civil nature, hence no FIR was filed and accordingly, Criminal Misc. Application No.894 of 2018 filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the present applicant came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, on 8.7.2018, it appears that the SOG with whom the investigation was transferred from LCB Gandhinagar has also submitted a detailed report that the dispute is of a civil nature and the loss is occurred in trading. Application No.894 of 2018 filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the present applicant came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, on 8.7.2018, it appears that the SOG with whom the investigation was transferred from LCB Gandhinagar has also submitted a detailed report that the dispute is of a civil nature and the loss is occurred in trading. A further report has also been filed on 16.7.2018 when the complainant filed earlier complaint-cum- application on 28.5.2018, wherein also, there was a report by SOG that the disputes are of a civil nature. Thus, it appears that complainant, i.e. Mr. Pranav Shah, gave another application on 8.3.2019, being 56 of 2019, before CID Crime (EOW) and pursuant to which, notice was issued on 23.5.2019, in which also, not only the statement of the accused is recorded but a reply has also been filed to the summons on 4.6.2019. Again, notice came to be issued on 11.6.2019 by the Detective Police Inspector, Gandhinagar Offence Wing, in which also, reply is filed on 3.7.2019 and then, apprehending that something is being precipitated against the applicant, it appears that on 18.7.2019, Criminal Misc. Application No.989 of 2019 was initially filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before learned District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which came to be rejected on 31.7.2019, and as such, feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicant was constrained to file application, being Criminal Misc. Application No.15667 of 2019, before this Court, in which the order came to be passed on 19.8.2019, which reads as under:- “It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions from the concerned officer, who is present in the Court that the applicant is only called for giving his statement by issuing notice and till date, the FIR is not registered. Learned advocate for the applicant, under the instructions, submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the concerned officer, pursuant to the notice issued by him. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the applicant will not be arrested till the registration of the FIR and after the registration of the FIR, necessary time will be given to him. In view of the aforesaid submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the application stands disposed of. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the applicant will not be arrested till the registration of the FIR and after the registration of the FIR, necessary time will be given to him. In view of the aforesaid submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the application stands disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.” (4) The record reveals further that after this, statement of the applicant also came to be recorded and on 28.8.2019, on page 209, detailed written reply is also submitted. In addition to it, a further reply has also been given on 4.4.2020 as well, which is on page 339/A of the application compilation. So, without much entering into the case in detail, for which the explanation of the applicant is also visible, all necessary documents have also been part of the investigation record by now and further, at this juncture, the Court is not supposed to adjudicate the ingredients of the offences and no much discussion or analysis at length is being undertaken. No-doubt, to some extent, the grievance voiced out by the complainant appears to be germane but the record revels that except precipitating criminal machinery, no action is initiated either for damages or for breach of the MoU by the applicant and as such, overall material on record and the submissions clearly giving an impression that case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail and it is not pointed out to the Court that the applicant has any criminal background or antecedent. 14. While coming to this conclusion, and upon aforesaid brief analysis of the bulky record placed before the Court, the Court is also mindful of the circumstance that the arrest of a citizen leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family. The Court should be careful and meticulous in evaluating the factual background and as such, upon aforesaid careful scrutiny of the documents of this peculiar facts and circumstance, the Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 15. The Court should be careful and meticulous in evaluating the factual background and as such, upon aforesaid careful scrutiny of the documents of this peculiar facts and circumstance, the Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 15. In view of the aforesaid background of facts, peculiar in nature, the Court is inclined to exercise the discretion, particularly when it appears that the applicant so far has cooperated with the investigation and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions which this Court would like to impose and further more, this order of anticipatory bail is also subject to the liberty of seeking remand. Hence, the Court is inclined to accept this application. 16. Hence, the Court is inclined to accept this application. 16. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R. No.I-02 of 2020 lodged before CID (Crime) Ahmedabad Zone, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicant shall: (a) cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (c) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (d) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (e) not to leave State of Gujarat without the permission of the Trial Court till the trial is over and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (f) mark presence before the concerned Police Station every month for a period of one year between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits; (h) appear before the concerned police station on 17th August 2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. 17. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. The application stands disposed of accordingly. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 18. This order is good for 90 days. The registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authority forthwith.