ORDER : 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No.11217027200753 of 2020 before Radhanpur Police Station, District: Patan for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2), 294(B) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. Learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for respondent no.2 have strongly opposed the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that present applicant is the main accused and by profession, he is a builder and had collected huge money by misleading the people that he has purchased a land bearing Survey No.235/1 paiki and people were cheated by showing the same land where the scheme for plots namely "Tirupati Residency". That however, the complainant and other victims found that the said plot was not sold to the applicant-accused. That the original owners have denied ownership of the applicant and categorically stated that they have not sold the land to the applicant. That intention of the applicant was to cheat innocent people and to amass huge wealth and therefore, this is a fit case to reject the present application. Learned APP has referred a report dated 02.11.2020 under the signature of Police Inspector, Radhanpur Police Station and supported the said report. 5. That intention of the applicant was to cheat innocent people and to amass huge wealth and therefore, this is a fit case to reject the present application. Learned APP has referred a report dated 02.11.2020 under the signature of Police Inspector, Radhanpur Police Station and supported the said report. 5. Learned advocate for respondent no.2, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Harivallabh Parikh versus State of Gujarat reported in 1997(1) GLR 368 as well as in the case of Rameshchandra Kashiram Vora versus State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 GLH 836 and argued that without approaching the learned Sessions Court, applicant cannot be permitted to approach the High Court by filing bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., he should not be permitted to approach this Court unless, there are exceptional and compelling circumstances. Ultimately, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has requested to dismiss present application. 6. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it appears that the complainant opted for the scheme and accordingly, paid sum amount of first installment to the accused no.4 on 25.06.2012. Some family members/cousins of the complainant also opted for the scheme and paid installments and thereby, total amount of Rs.69,200/- towards 24 installments were paid by the complainant. Other family members/cousins also paid same amount, each towards 24 installments. Thus, total amount of Rs.2,76,800/- was deposited by the complainant and family members/cousins. As per the allegations made in the complaint, when the complainant went to deposit 25th installments in the scheme, applicant had informed him that scheme was closed and no more installments were to be deposited. Upon such intimation, the complainant asked to return the amount deposited by him as well as some family members/cousins and he was informed to complainant to wait for about a year. After the said period of one year, when the complainant approached the present complainant about demanding money back, he was asked by the applicant to wait for some more time and thereafter, issued threats and used the abusive language. With above brief allegations, impugned FIR came to be filed before Radhanpur Police Station. 8. After the said period of one year, when the complainant approached the present complainant about demanding money back, he was asked by the applicant to wait for some more time and thereafter, issued threats and used the abusive language. With above brief allegations, impugned FIR came to be filed before Radhanpur Police Station. 8. Before going through material facts of the case, this Court would like to refer the judgment of this Court rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 313 of 2018 dated 15.03.2018, wherein in Para 25, this Court has observed while considering the arguments of learned APP as under: "25. On the other hand, Mr. Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that having regard to the plain language of section 17(2) of the Act, and also the object and the reasons for the enactment of the Act, 2003, the Designated Court has been denuded of its powers to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. According to Mr. Amin, the language of the statute is very clear. Section 17(2) provides that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. except section 438 thereof shall apply to the proceedings before a Designated Court. According to Mr. Amin, there is a specific exclusion of the power of the Designated Court to consider the plea for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Amin prays that this Court may hold that the Designated Court has no powers to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code." 9. In the said judgment, this Court has also observed in Para 51 as under: "51. I tried to look into the matter from a different angle too. Having taken the view that the Designated Court, under the Act, 2003, being a Court of the original criminal jurisdiction, has been denied specifically the power under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail, whether there is any scope to read into section 17 of the Act, 2003, a unique combination of sessions judge and a magistrate. Section 9 of the Act, 2003 provides for constitution of a Designated Court. However, section 9provides that the Designated Court should be of the level of the Court of a District and Sessions Judge. Whether this, by itself, will make the Designated Court, a Court of Sessions?. Section 9 of the Act, 2003 provides for constitution of a Designated Court. However, section 9provides that the Designated Court should be of the level of the Court of a District and Sessions Judge. Whether this, by itself, will make the Designated Court, a Court of Sessions?. Section 17(2) of the Act, 2003 provides for a deeming fiction. Section 17(2) clarifies that the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973 except section 438 thereof shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a Designated Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, a Designated Court R/SCR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. By adding a deeming provision a legal fiction has been created under subsection (2) of section 17 of the Act, 2003, by which, the Designated Judge has to be treated as a Magistrate. The Expression "shall be deemed" is, generally, used in the statues when the legislature wants to confer a status or an attribute to a person or thing which is not intrinsically possessed by that person or thing, on whom, the conferment is made. It is well settled that whatever an Act requires to be deemed or taken as true of any person or thing must in law be considered as having been duly adjudged or established concerning such person or thing and have force and effect accordingly. In order to correctly interpret a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, it has to assume all those facts and consequences which are inevitable for giving effect to the fiction." 10. By virtue of section 17(2) of the Act, 2003, the Designated Court has been denuded of its powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. Section 17(2) provides that the provisions of the Cr..P.C. except section 438 thereof cannot be applied to the proceedings before a Designated Court. Therefore, there is a specific exclusion of the power of the Designated Court to consider the plea for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. As designated court has no power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code, arguments advanced by learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and applicability of the judgments relied upon by him cannot be considered. 11. As designated court has no power to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code, arguments advanced by learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and applicability of the judgments relied upon by him cannot be considered. 11. This Court in the judgment reported in 1997(1) GLR 368 as well as 1986 GLH 836 has certainly held that without approaching the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., such application before the trial court should not be permitted unless there are exceptional and compelling circumstances. As designated Court is barred to entertain the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, judgments which are relied upon by the leaned advocate for the original complainant would not helpful to him. It also appears that co-accused Prakashbhai Jayantilal Thakkar was released on regular bail by this court, coaccused Kamleshbhai Amaratlal Thakkar was released on anticipatory bail by this court, another accused namely Vasantlal Jamnadar Thakkar as well as Virabhai Gandabhai Ahir were released on regular bail by this court and the accused no.4 was expired. It also appears that applicant has shown his bonafides by depositing Rs. 24 lacs before the trial Court. Thus, considering the nature of offence, gravity of offence, involvement of the present applicant in the offence as well as considering the fact that other coaccused are released on anticipatory as well as regular bail by this court and bonafides shown by the applicant by depositing amount of Rs.24 lacs, prayer requires consideration. Considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, it appears that without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 12. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 12. 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.11217027200753 of 2020 before Radhanpur Police Station, District: Patan, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/( Rupees 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) remain present at concerned Police Station on 12.11.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) 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; (d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) 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; (f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (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; 13. 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. 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. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 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. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. 14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Police Station through fax or email forthwith.