ORDER : 1. By way of these applications, all the applicants herein have prayed for granting the anticipatory bail by exercising the powers under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 1121402122-0281 of 2022 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District: Surat in respect of offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 10708 of 2022 is the main accused against whom the allegation is after floating residential scheme and collecting the amount, the said applicant has executed the sale deed nor returned the amounts. The applicant viz. Vrushabh Amitbhai Dhameliya of Criminal Misc. Application No. 8348 of 2022 is the son of the aforesaid applicant viz. Mr. Amitbhai Dhirubhai Dhameliya (Patel). The applicant viz. Ashish Atulbhai Thummar of Criminal Misc. Application No. 8520 of 2022 happens to be a relative of aforesaid Amitbhai Dhirubhai Dhameliya and also employee of firm of the accused-Amitbhai Dhameliya. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No. 9539 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Application No. 9630 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 10234 of 2022 happen to be agents who encouraged the people to invest in the aforesaid residential scheme as per the say of learned advocate Mr. Mousam R. Yagnik and leanred advocate Mr. Kunal Shah. 3. As per the FIR being C. R. No. 1121402122-0281 of 2022 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District:- Surat in respect of offence under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by one Jitendra Prasad Bednath Gupta, it is stated that in the year 2014, on Revenue Survey Nos. 244 and 246 and Block No. 189/A and 189/B situated at Mota Borsara Village, Taluka: Mangrol and District: Surat, the main accused Amitbhai Dhameliya floated scheme of residential plots and accused persons-Ashish Atulbhai Thummar and Vrushabh Amitbhai Dhameliya were booking residential plots. The complainant also booked two plots being Plots No. 118 and 119 and made payments by installments. The aforesaid payment was recorded in two different diaries and diaries were given to the complainant. The complainant also booked two plots being Plots No. 118 and 119 and made payments by installments. The aforesaid payment was recorded in two different diaries and diaries were given to the complainant. After the amount was paid through land broker one Umeshbhai, when the complainant went to pay further installment, he found the booking office closed and therefore, he approached the broker Umeshbhai who said that the main accused Amitbhai Dhameliya has opened new office at Cross Road Shopping Center, Amroli, Surat. Upon reaching there, upon insistence by the complainant, the main accused Amit Dhameliya executed a document on Rs. 100/- stamp paper and ultimately, the complainant came to know that though the land did not belong to the main accused Amitbhai Dhameliya despite that he collected the booking amount and subsequent payments from the complainant and the other people and thereafter, neither gave the plots nor repaid the amount. 4. Upon further inquiry, the complainant came to know that there are 220 people who were cheated in the name of plot booking. The complainant further came to know that the land was an agricultural land for which a civil suit was pending since 2001 and despite having knowledge of the aforesaid facts, the accused persons not only started booking of the residential plots without getting Non Agricultural use Permission and even the agents encouraged the people to invest in the aforesaid scheme and thereby, cheated them. 5. As per the FIR, the aforesaid facts came to the notice of the complainant in the year 2015. However, the FIR was registered in the year 2022. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mousam Yagnik and learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that the FIR has been registered after a delay of seven years. The applicants’ intention was not to cheat the people and he was ready and willing to settle with the people. Mr. Yagnik appearing for the main accused-Amitbhai Dhameliya submitted that the applicant has settled the dispute with most of the persons who had booked the plots and he is ready and willing to settle with others as well. However, he states that according to the applicant Mr. Amitbhai Dhameliya, the total amount involved is not more than 14,00,000/- to 15,00,000/- whereas as per the FIR the amount is Rs. 2,31,00,000/-. 7. Learned advocate Mr. However, he states that according to the applicant Mr. Amitbhai Dhameliya, the total amount involved is not more than 14,00,000/- to 15,00,000/- whereas as per the FIR the amount is Rs. 2,31,00,000/-. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik further submitted that the other persons who have been named in the FIR are the agents and they are not the beneficiaries of the booking amount and as soon as it came to their knowledge that the land for which the booking was done is an agricultural land, the booking was stopped. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik and learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that as far as the accused persons namely Mr. Vrushabh Amitbhai Dhameliya and Mr. Ashish Thummar are concerned, Vrushabh Dhameliya happens to be the son of the main accused and at the relevant point of time, he was minor whereas as far as Ashishbhai Thummar is concerned, it was submitted that though he happens to be relative, he was actual employee of the Amitbhai Dhameliya and therefore, considering the respective role attributed to the accused persons who are the applicants, they may be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik and learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the relief in favour of the applicants was granted on 17.06.2022 and is operating till date and other orders passed in respective applications, each of the applicants appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer on different dates and their statements have been recorded and they have cooperated with the investigation so far. According to learned advocate Mr. Yagnik and learned advocate Mr. Shah in view of the cooperation extended by the applicants, custodial interrogation would not be required and therefore, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 9. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the aforesaid application and submitted that as against 220 persons who have booked the residential plots, the applicant has settled with only three persons as can be seen from the affidavits filed alongwith the application. 10. 9. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the aforesaid application and submitted that as against 220 persons who have booked the residential plots, the applicant has settled with only three persons as can be seen from the affidavits filed alongwith the application. 10. He submitted that the main accused has no intention to settle with the persons who invested in the residential scheme and the victim of the fraud are the people belonging to the lower strata of the society, the persons who have booked the plots where the persons engaged in petty work and it was their hard earned money which they invested with the accused persons on the basis of dream shown to them by the agents who are also the accused and applicants before this Court. 11. Learned APP Mr. Soni submitted that even accused Ashish Thummar and Vrushabh Dhameliya were also siting at the booking office and had taken the bookings and therefore, considering their active role in the ofence in question, they may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 12. As far as the submissions that the accused person Vrushabh Dhameliya was a minor at the relevant point of time is concerned, learned APP submitted that such submissions cannot be believed at this stage and even if the accused persons was minor at the relevant point of time, it should be left to the Investigating Officer to decide whether his custodial interrogation is required or not. Considering the fact that there is prima faice involvement of each of the accused persons in the offence in question as well as considering the fact that though it was submitted that the applicant has settled with most of the victims, learned advocates for the applicants could not produce details about the victims with whom they have settled the dispute and therefore, such submission cannot be believed as the same is without any basis. 13. Learned APP further pointed out that though in the FIR total amount of fraud is alleged to be Rs. 2,31,00,000/- , as per the applicant Mr. Amitbhai Dhameilya, the total amount involved is only Rs.14,00,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- which shows the intention of the accused persons. 14. 13. Learned APP further pointed out that though in the FIR total amount of fraud is alleged to be Rs. 2,31,00,000/- , as per the applicant Mr. Amitbhai Dhameilya, the total amount involved is only Rs.14,00,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- which shows the intention of the accused persons. 14. Learned APP also pointed out the fact that there are three past antecedents against the accused Amitbhai Dhameliya, Ashishbhai Thummar and Kamlesh which also shows that the accused persons are having criminal mindset and their intention was to dupe the people by collecting the money and thereafter neither giving residential plots nor to repay the money. 15. Learned APP also pointed out that though the main accused Mr. Amitbhai Dhameliya was aware about the fact that land is a non agricultural land and civil suit is pending since 2001, despite that without disclosing the aforesaid facts, he floated the scheme and therefore, his intention was very clear that irrespective of status of the land, he wanted to collect the money and was never interested in providing the residential plot to the victims. 16. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned APP Mr. Soni prayed for dismissal of each of the application by vacating the relief granted in favour of the applicants. 17. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. 18. Upon a specific query from this Court to learned advocate Mr. Yagnik that if there were 220 plot holders who paid the booking amount, as the applicant has stated that he has settled with most of the persons who have booked the plots, what is the number of persons with whom the applicant has settled. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik had no answer to this query. He repeatedly pointed out those three affidavits which are on record but had no answer about remaing 217 persons. 19. Further both learned advocate Mr. Yagnik as well as learned advocate Mr. Shah could not point out from the record that the persons who are the agents before this Court were unaware about the status of the land that the land was an agricultural land and without converting it in non agricultural land, the scheme was floated. 20. In fact there are specific allegations in the FIR against the Ashish Thummar and Vrushabh Dhameliya that they were sitting at the booking office and was instrumental in booking the plots. 20. In fact there are specific allegations in the FIR against the Ashish Thummar and Vrushabh Dhameliya that they were sitting at the booking office and was instrumental in booking the plots. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, as this Court is mindful of the fact that this is an anticipatory bail application and therefore, without discussing the evidence in detail, considering the fact that there is ample material against each of the applicant and also considering the fact that anticipatory bail is required to be granted in rarest of the rare case where the Court is satisfied that there is no prima facie involvement of the applicant in the offence of question and on perusal of the record and considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, as this Court is of the opinion that there is ample material against each of the applicant, this is not a fit case to exercise the powers under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by granting the anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly all these Criminal Misc. Applications required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 21. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 22. At this stage, both the learned advocate Mr. Yagnik and learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the applicants prayed for extension of ad interim relief as the same is operating since long. However, the request is rejected.