ORDER : RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing. 2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11195050200415 of 2020 registered with Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the first informant owns a shop by the name Kishan Corporation in Tharad Agricultural Produce Market (APMC), and he deals in different crops. It is further alleged that on 06.05.2020, the accused persons came to his shop during the auction of crop and they purchased Isabgol worth Rs.3,17,303/-. It is further alleged that on 08.05.2020, the accused persons purchased cumin seeds worth Rs.4,18,727/- from the shop of the first informant in auction. It is further alleged that the first informant demanded payment of the said crops, but the accused persons did not make any payment on one excuse or the other. It is further alleged that the accused persons purchased goods worth Rs.29,35,500/from other traders of the same market and did not pay the said traders. It is further alleged that the accused persons purchased goods totally worth Rs.36,71,530/- from their vendors and did not repay for the same. 4. Mr.Tejas Barot, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the alleged dispute among the traders and the applicant is a civil dispute, which has been given a colour of criminality solely. He has submitted that the co-accused viz. Motilal Talsabhai Patel approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.10092 of 2020 for regular bail. It is submitted that the first informant appeared before this Court and argued that the first informant would have no objection if the said co-accused Motilal Patel is granted bail, if he deposits Rs.40,00,000/- before the Court. It is submitted that this stance of the first informant is clearly indicative of the fact that the first informant has misused the process of law only with a view to recover money from the accused persons. It is submitted that this stance of the first informant is clearly indicative of the fact that the first informant has misused the process of law only with a view to recover money from the accused persons. It is submitted that this Court allowed the aforesaid application vide order dated 27.07.2020 overruling the said argument of the first informant and specifically observed that the proceedings should not be used to recover money from the accused persons. He has also submitted that while granting bail to the co-accused, this Court imposed a condition that the applicant of that application shall furnish a solvent surety of Rs.40,00,000/-and execute a personal bond of the equal amount. In that view of the matter, the interest of the first informant and other traders are already secured and, therefore, the applicant is required to be protected by this Court. He has submitted that the basic ingredients to attract provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are missing as there is no entrustment of property by the applicant. It is submitted that there is not a single averment suggesting that the applicant intended to cheat the informant and other traders from the very inception. He has submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. 4.1. Mr.Barot has submitted that the applicant has already filed an affidavit dated 01.04.2021, wherein, he has categorically made a statement that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before the concerned trial court and also ready to furnish solvent surety of the equal amount. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, has submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to the powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He has further submitted that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, has submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. He has further submitted that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, has submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, Ms.Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent–State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that instead of depositing solvent surety, the applicant may be asked for bank guarantee. She has further submitted that the applicant may not be granted bail as he is one of the perpetrators. It is also submitted that the applicant had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No.13543 of 2020, which was withdrawn by the applicant, hence the present application may not be entertained as there are no change in circumstances. She has also placed reliance on the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.213 of 2021. 5.1. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Barot has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rani Dudeja vs. State of Haryana, 2017 (13) S.C.C. 555 , and has submitted that the second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable as it was not decided on merits. He has also submitted that there is change in circumstances as the applicant is ready and willing to deposit a reasonable amount. It is also submitted that the observations made by the Apex Court will not come in his way as in the case before the Apex Court, the accused was not cooperating with the investigation, however in the present case the applicant has fully cooperated. 5.2. Mr.N.P.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the first informant, has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submitted that the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. It appears that the entire controversy pertains to the nonpayment of total amount of Rs.36,71,530/- of the goods. The Coordinate Bench has already taken care of the aforesaid amount by imposing the condition as envisaged herein in the case of the coaccused by taking solvent surety of Rs.40,00,000/- and personal bond of the equal amount. 6. It appears that the entire controversy pertains to the nonpayment of total amount of Rs.36,71,530/- of the goods. The Coordinate Bench has already taken care of the aforesaid amount by imposing the condition as envisaged herein in the case of the coaccused by taking solvent surety of Rs.40,00,000/- and personal bond of the equal amount. However, it may be clarified that the order of the coordinate bench is dated 27.07.2020, whereas the applicant had withdrawn his application on 30.09.2020 which is subsequent. In the present case, the applicant has filed an affidavit dated 01.04.2021, wherein, he has categorically made a statement that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before the concerned trial court and is also ready to furnish solvent surety of the equal amount. As regards the maintainability of the application is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion, that since the applicant has shown is willingness to deposit the aforesaid amount before the trial Court after the withdrawal of the former application and has also cooperated with the investigation, the same will satisfy the restriction of “Changed circumstances”. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is also not required as nothing is pointed out that his custody will be required for further investigation. The entire transaction appears to be the nonpayment of money for the purchased goods. 6.1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. This Court has considered following aspects; (a) Prima facie the alleged dispute among the traders and the applicant is a civil dispute which has been given a color of criminality solely; (b) The coaccused viz. Motilal Talsabhai Patel approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.10092 of 2020 for regular bail. 7. This Court has considered following aspects; (a) Prima facie the alleged dispute among the traders and the applicant is a civil dispute which has been given a color of criminality solely; (b) The coaccused viz. Motilal Talsabhai Patel approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.10092 of 2020 for regular bail. This Court allowed the application vide order dated 27.07.2020 overruling the argument of the original complainant and specifically observed that the proceedings should not be used to recover money from the accused persons; (c) Prima facie the basic ingredients to attract provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are missing as there is no entrustment of property by the applicant; (d) The applicant has already filed an affidavit dated 01.04.2021, wherein, he has categorically made a statement that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before the concerned trial court and also ready to furnish solvent surety of the equal amount; 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi) , AIR 2020 SC 831 . 9. In the result, the present application is allowed on condition that the applicant shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this order before the trial court. He shall further file an undertaking to the effect that he will deposit remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- before the trial court within a period of 04 (four) weeks after deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- . He shall further furnish solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/- and execute a personal bond of the equal amount before the trial court. He shall further file an undertaking to the effect that he will deposit remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- before the trial court within a period of 04 (four) weeks after deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- . He shall further furnish solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/- and execute a personal bond of the equal amount before the trial court. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195050200415 of 2020 registered with Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he : (a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 10.05.2021 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 him 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 his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; (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) deposit Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this order before the trial court; (i) file an undertaking to the effect that he will deposit remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- before the trial court within a period of 04 (weeks) weeks after deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-; (j) furnish solvent surety of Rs.10,00,000/- and execute a personal bond of the equal amount before the trial court. It is clarified that the aforesaid deposit of amount would be without prejudice to the rights and the contentions of the applicant. 10. It is clarified that the aforesaid deposit of amount would be without prejudice to the rights and the contentions of the applicant. 10. 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 concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the 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 concerned 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. 11. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 13. Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. 14. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.