ORDER : 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.11210030230587 of 2023 with Mahidarpura Police Station, District Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is further stated that he is only a friend of Amar Patil, who is the accused in the complaint. It has been alleged against Amar Patil that he made a transaction of Rs. 5,00,000, whereas in fact, the present applicant has nothing to do with it. Even the alleged offence took place in December 2022, and the complaint was filed in July 2023. In the FIR, a specific date is mentioned using the phrase 'on the following day. It is further submitted that offence is not punishable by life or death. 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. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 4. Per contra, The learned APP submits that the applicant has a direct involvement in the offence. At the outset, the present applicant and other co-accused allegedly hatched a conspiracy in connivance with each other and an unknown person in December 2022. They purportedly gave assurance to the complainant that they would provide a loan at an interest rate of 4% to 6% per annum, with the intention to defraud. To execute the agreement, they received an advance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- through RTGS, which was deposited into the account of I.U. Multimedia Company and one Sweta Gajvi and these all accused received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and the said amount has not been returned back and they have committed the fraud. To execute the agreement, they received an advance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- through RTGS, which was deposited into the account of I.U. Multimedia Company and one Sweta Gajvi and these all accused received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and the said amount has not been returned back and they have committed the fraud. 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. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and after giving the thoughtful consideration, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant and the other co-accused, in connivance with each other, deceived and defrauded the complainant by assuring them of a loan of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Fifty Crore Rupees) at an interest rate of 4% to 6%. To facilitate this, they demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- as a commission, which the complainant transferred to the account of I.U. Multimedia through RTGS. Subsequently, the accused individuals informed the complainant that, in order to proceed with the agreement and related proceedings, they needed to travel to Goa to execute the agreement. During this time, they cooked up various stories. Therefore, all these aspects require thorough investigation. Thus, the present applicant is charged with conspiracy, and a significant financial transaction is involved. Therefore, the present offence is a white-collar socio-economic offence and should be approached differently. 6. From the documents on record, it also appears that present applicant- accused No.4 was found in the company of accused No.3 in the office, where they discussed the transfer of funds to I.U. Multimedia. The present applicant was also observed wrapping and concealing currency notes of Rs.2,000/- in such a manner that they could not be detected during security checks at the airport. Furthermore, it appears that the applicant informed the complainant that, due to some mistake, his luggage could not be located, and it might have been inadvertently sent to Bangladesh. As a result, it would take four to five days to retrieve it, and the complainant would need to wait for its return. In view thereof, prima facie, the involvement of the present applicant is evident. 7. As a result, it would take four to five days to retrieve it, and the complainant would need to wait for its return. In view thereof, prima facie, the involvement of the present applicant is evident. 7. In view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein the Court held that 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. 8. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) State Rep. By the CBI vs. Anil Sharma, reported in 1997(7) SCC 187 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B., reported in 2005(4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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. 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. 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. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 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. Anticipatory bail is not 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.” 9. In the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon’ble Court has held that Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. 10. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation.” 9. In the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon’ble Court has held that Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. 10. In the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 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.” 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the present applicant is released on bail, he could potentially obstruct the ongoing investigation. Therefore, for a thorough and qualitative investigation, custodial interrogation is deemed necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application. Hence, the application stands dismissed. Rule discharged.