ORDER : Learned advocate has tendered a draft amendment, the same is allowed in terms of draft. 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. 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.11191011220168 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, District : Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that applicant is not connected in any manner with the offence. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is falsely enroped in the said offence and he has nothing to do with offence. It is submitted that charge-sheet is filed and there is no role attributed to the present applicant. It is submitted that in one room of his hotel, the alleged offence is committed, except this no any role is attributed to the present applicant. Even on the basis of statement of co-accused, he has falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that applicant has not received any financial benefit or gain and he has not also opened any account in the name of any fictitious or the bogus firm and he has also not obtained any GST numbers also and he has not also taken any undue advantage or any benefit of the so-called inputs credit. In view of above, he has stated under the instructions, he is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the learned advocate for the applicant has requested to allow the present application. 4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application and stated that accused is absconder. During the investigation, it came to know that the present applicant is involved in the last stage of conspiracy and the accused persons including applicant have duped the money of government funding and committed fraud of 852 crores and taken the undue advantage and cause loss to the government exchequer and the revenue. It is submitted that investigation is at the crucial stage and the thoroughly investigation is required. In view of above, she has requested to dismiss the present application. It is submitted that investigation is at the crucial stage and the thoroughly investigation is required. In view of above, she has requested to dismiss the present application. In view of above, she has requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.J. Dave and learned APP Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent-State. 6. Considering the fact that present accused is facing charges under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC. 6.1. On perusal of the FIR, prima facie, it appears that the conspiracy by hatching conspiracy more than 100 fictitious firm and name of the sell companies of same transactions and fraud of Rs.852 crores have been committed. Investigation is at very initial stage and the allegation of the creating the forged and fabricated bogus bills and documents by using the said GST numbers and the documents, the inputs credit of amount has been credited in the accounts of the various accused. Prima facie, it appears that present offence is economic offence and such offence needs visited in different approach and approach is required while dealing with such offence as loss cause to the government exchequer and allegation of the conscription is there. Hardly direct evidence is available of the conspiracy and conspiracy is required to infer. So far as the allegations of conspiracy is concerned, large scale conspiracy is there. Considering the investigation is a very preliminary stage, custodial interrogation is required. 6.2. 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 investigation. 7. While granting the bail, the Court has to consider the possibility of tampering and hampering with an evidence and there is a possibility of accused to flee away from the justice also. During the trap, the audio and video recording being used and conversation are also recorded in the devices. Thus, prima facie involvement of accused is noticed. 7.1. 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. During the trap, the audio and video recording being used and conversation are also recorded in the devices. Thus, prima facie involvement of accused is noticed. 7.1. 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. 7.2. 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 may hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person 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 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held as follows: "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. 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". 7.3. 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 . 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 , 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." 7.4. It would be apposite to refer 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 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.7.5. Considering the fact that in the case on hand, the present applicant remained absconder and he has not joined the investigation. 7.6. 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.7.5. Considering the fact that in the case on hand, the present applicant remained absconder and he has not joined the investigation. 7.6. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784 , Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 , Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, it is observed that as accused remained absconder and considering the aforesaid fact, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. 7.7. It would be apposite 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, 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.” 7.8. 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 saythat order under Section 438 is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a seal against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. 7.9. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to saythat order under Section 438 is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a seal against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. 7.9. 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 therefore, this Court is having 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. 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.