ORDER : 1. Rule. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Ekant Ahuja waives service of rule on behalf of original complainant. With the consent of parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. By way of this successive application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11191065230414 of 2023 registered with Narol Police Station, District Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 323, 294 (b), 384, 386, 506 (2) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, sections, 5, 40, 42 (a), 42 (b) and 42 (2) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act. 3. As per the FIR registered by one Kamalkumar Deshraj Dogra, it is stated that he is having various business stated in the FIR and he is staying with his family. In March 2020, due to Corona, there was a recession in business and therefore, the first informant was facing financial crisis and therefore, he contacted one Falgun Bipinbhai Mehta and requested him to lend some money, in turn Falgun Bipinbhai Mehta agreed to lend her an amount of Rs.8,00,000,00/- as requested by first informant by charging interest @ 9% interest per month. Thereafter, as the amount was big, the said Falgun Mehta introduced the first informant to his friends including the present applicant and in two Bank accounts of the Kaaml Translink of Kotak Mahindra Bank a sum of Rs.7,71,67,151/- was deposited. Out of which towards repayment of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- were deposited in account of the present applicant. Against the aforesaid amount, a total sum of Rs.11,15,90,022/- was deposited in the Bank account of seven persons, despite that it is alleged that the present applicant forcibly took away the Lamborghini car owned by the son of the first informant worth Rs.7 Crores and got transferred in his name. One another car being Fortuner as well as one Mercedes E- Class also was taken away forcibly from the first informant by the co-accused persons. One another car being Fortuner as well as one Mercedes E- Class also was taken away forcibly from the first informant by the co-accused persons. Thereafter, on 14.02.2023 there was a GST raid on the company of the first informant and the Bank accounts of the first informant were freezed and therefore, the present applicant and alongwith Falgun Mehta and son of the present applicant - Prem Patel threatened the first informant and forced them to open their accounts in another bank and transferred an amount of Rs.2,57,00,000/- from that accounts to the various banks accounts of the present applicant and co-accused’s account. As the first informant had already paid much more amount than the actual amount borrowed by him, despite that the present applicant and other co-accused used to threaten him telephonically and personally and on 04.04.2023 he was beaten also by the present applicant and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, the first informant was threatened to transfer the properties in favour of the present applicant and other co-accused persons and therefore, as against Rs.7,71,67,151/- though more than Rs.14,48,59,022/- were repaid to him, despite that for transfer of the properties of the first informant, the present applicant and co-accused continuously used to threaten him and the FIR is registered. 4. Upon registration of the FIR, the applicant came to be arrested on 25.5.2023. After filing of charge-sheet, the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.14328 of 2023 seeking regular bail which came to be rejected by this Court by a reasoned order dated 6.10.2023. 5. Against the said order, the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13654 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said application came to be withdrawn on the note filed by learned advocate for the applicant on 14.12.2023. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.2023 reads as under :- "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the instant petition in the light of the deposition of the complainant being made before the Trial Court for availing the remedy in accordance with law. Prayer granted. The present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 6. Prayer granted. The present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, during the interregnum period, the original complainant had given examination-in-chief before the Metropolitan Court, Ahmedabad, the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn by the applicant and thereafter, the applicant preferred fresh bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.9839 of 2023 which came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.22, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 2.1.2024. Hence the present application. 7. Mr. I. H. Syed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vishrut Bhandari for the applicant made following submissions :- 7.1 That applicant had withdrawn Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13654 of 2023 on 14.12.2023. In the meantime, on 21.11.2023, the original complainant had given deposition before the Metropolitan Court wherein he distracted from his original version in the complaint and ultimately withdrew all allegations against the applicant. On 21.11.2023, when the said deposition of the original complainant was recorded, the applicant was on temporary bail and thereafter, he preferred an application seeking extension of temporary bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20372 of 2023 and on 22.11.2023, the original complainant remained present before this Court and upon his express consent, the temporary bail of the applicant was extended for a further period of one week. 7.2 That the parties had entered into a settlement and on the basis of that, Criminal Misc. Application No.21250 of 2023 seeking quashing of FIR in question by consent was also preferred before this Court. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid subsequent development, a note before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed by the advocate for the applicant and Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13654 of 2023 was withdrawn on 14.12.2023 with a liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 7.3 However, somehow on 2.12.2023, the complainant filed a complaint before the Airport Police Station, Ahmedabad alleging that he was kidnapped and was under constant threat and even his deposition was given under threat. However after submitting the said complaint, the complainant did not remain present before the said Police Station and, therefore, for quite some time, his statement could not be recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer. However after submitting the said complaint, the complainant did not remain present before the said Police Station and, therefore, for quite some time, his statement could not be recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer. In the meantime, the complainant filed another complaint before the Economic Offence Cell, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad city on 5.1.2024 alleging same allegations. On 5.1.2024, Investigating Officer of Airport Police Station submitted a report observing that the complaint of the complainant is not supported by any evidence and upon conducting the investigation in respect of the allegations levelled, prima facie, the aforesaid allegations seems to be wrong and hence, the complaint of the complainant was filed. 7.4 That even as per the report submitted by the Investigating Officer of Economic Offence Cell, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad, he observed that in absence of there being any supportive evidence, the complaint of the complainant was ordered to be filed. 7.5 Therefore, it was a design by the complainant to first give deposition in favour of the applicant and thereafter to retract from it and to file fresh complaint against the applicant just to ensure that applicant may not come out of jail. Therefore, considering the conduct of the complainant, as time and again he has retracted from his original version and after filing false complaints did not appear before the Police authority and hence, it can safely be said that the complainant is habitual of filing false complaints as both the Police authorities have submitted reports against the complainant by observing that the version of the complainant is not supported by any evidence and, therefore, looking to the conduct of the complainant and considering the fact that on 23.11.2023, he has retracted from the allegations that he levelled in the FIR, the credibility of the original complainant is doubtful for which the applicant is behind bar since 25.5.2023 and, hence, on this ground, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 7.6 That though this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of the applicant by passing a reasoned order, the aspect of res judicata is not applicable in the criminal cases. 7.6 That though this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of the applicant by passing a reasoned order, the aspect of res judicata is not applicable in the criminal cases. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 615 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court can always consider fresh circumstances and subsequent events even if the earlier bail application is rejected and thereafter, the SLP is withdrawn. The same would not make the fresh bail application legally not maintainable. He, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the applicant to file avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law and hence, in view of contradictions in two examination-in-chief of the original complainant than the version of the FIR, the same would indicate that considering the circumstances that on 21.11.2023 as there was settlement between the parties, the complainant gave deposition in favour of the applicant and later on he retracted from it and on 12.3.2023, he altogether gave different version retracting from his earlier examination-in-chief and hence, considering the fact that the version of the complainant is not at all credible, the allegations levelled by the complainant against the applicant in the FIR are required to be considered in light of the subsequent credibility of the deposition of the complainant and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant who is behind bar from 25.5.2023 may be enlarged on regular bail. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. M. Panchal assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ekant Ahuja for the original complainant has vehemently opposed the present application and made following submissions :- 8.1 That when the earlier bail application of the applicant filed after filing of the charge-sheet being Criminal Misc. Application No.14328 of 2023 was dismissed by giving cogent reasons considering the merits of the case as well as past antecedents of the applicant by recording that the applicant has a criminal history and there are number of criminal cases registered against him, within a span of 8 months, such observations would not wipe out. Application No.14328 of 2023 was dismissed by giving cogent reasons considering the merits of the case as well as past antecedents of the applicant by recording that the applicant has a criminal history and there are number of criminal cases registered against him, within a span of 8 months, such observations would not wipe out. 8.2 That ultimately, the applicant withdrew his bail application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.2023 and merely because liberty was granted to the applicant, it does not mean that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the deposition of the original complainant to be a change of circumstance. 8.3 That whether the deposition of the original complainant which was not over on 14.12.2023 can be said to be change of circumstances or not is required to be decided by this Court and according to him, the same would not amount to change of circumstances. 8.4 Even if without admitting it is believed that the parties have entered into compromise, then also, that is not a good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail as held by this Court in the case of Ashwin Jivrambhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, decided on 28.7.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2020. That observations made in paragraph 7 of the said decision are important wherein this Court has decided that some proposed settlement between the parties as a change of circumstance as a ground for consideration of the appeal, such settlement could not be treated as a change in the circumstance resulting into consideration of the successive bail application. 8.5 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not considered the alleged settlement arrived at between the parties nor the same was believed by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, on that basis, if this application is being canvassed, the same cannot be said to be a change of circumstance and, therefore, this application is required to be rejected out-rightly in view of the fact that as such, no change of circumstance exists. 8.6 The alleged compromise on the basis of which the present application is preferred as if there is change of circumstance has never been acted upon by the parties and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be a compromise. 8.6 The alleged compromise on the basis of which the present application is preferred as if there is change of circumstance has never been acted upon by the parties and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be a compromise. 8.7 That the complaint filed by the present applicant for which a prima facie opinion is arrived at by the two Investigating Officers of two different Police Stations is not yet decided as the present applicant had filed a private complaint under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein a report is called for from the concerned Police authorities. Therefore, if the Police report is considered at this stage, in that case, the same would amount to closing the right of the original complainant in respect of his grievance. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 9. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State has also vehemently opposed this application and made following submissions :- 9.1 That the compromise taken place between the parties is imaginary and the same cannot be considered to be a compromise at all and even if the same is believed, the same cannot be said to be a change of circumstance. 9.2 That when there is no change of circumstance, the second successive bail application is not required to be entertained by this Court as except for the fact that compromise is arrived at between the parties, no other ground is urged by the applicant and, therefore, the present application is required to be rejected outrightly. 9.3 In support of her submission, she relied upon the unreported decision of the this Court in the case of Gopal Mafabhai Jogarana v. The State of Gujarat, delivered on 27.10.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No.14739 of 2023 and by relying upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment, she submitted that in absence of any new ground or any change of circumstance, no fresh successive bail application is required to be entertained. Application No.14739 of 2023 and by relying upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment, she submitted that in absence of any new ground or any change of circumstance, no fresh successive bail application is required to be entertained. 9.4 She further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another, (2005) 2 SCC 42 and by relying upon paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said decision, she submitted that in view of the fact that earlier bail application was rejected on merit, in absence of there being any change of circumstance, the present bail application is not required to be considered once again and, therefore, the present application is required to be dismissed. 9.5 She further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 195 and submitted that at the stage of grant of bail, this Court may not opine anything about the credibility of the FIR as the same would have some adverse effect at the trial which is ongoing. 10. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel Mr. I. H. Syed appearing for the applicant pointed out that there is a reason to believe that the parties has arrived at a compromise for the reason that there are notarized affidavits which are affirmed by the original complainant. There are affidavits on record in respect of other co-accused, namely, Vikram Bharwad, Prakash Oza, Hammad Nasir Hasruddin Saiyad. All these affidavits are affirmed on 28.11.2023 and the aforesaid affidavits are acted upon also as there is no complaint filed against those persons by the original complainant. If the version of the original complainant is believed that he was kidnapped, then he could not have filed the affidavits in respect of other co-accused and considering the fact that he has not questioned those affidavits and in fact, he has acted upon those affidavits, would suggest that whatever affidavits were preferred and whatever depositions in the form of examination-in-chief was given by way of free will of the original complainant on account of compromise arrived at between the parties. He further submitted that subsequent application i.e. present application is not only preferred on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, by point out the order dated 14.12.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he submitted that the said application was withdrawn with a view to avail appropriate remedy on account of deposition of the original complainant. He further submitted that the only deposition available on 14.12.2023 was the deposition whereby the original complainant had retracted from his original version in the FIR. He further submitted that even the State and advocate for the original complainant had also appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even they also neither objected to withdrawal of the bail application nor they informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the subsequent development about filing of the complaint under threat by the complainant. He, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid conduct on the part of the original complainant would amount to suppression of very vital facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that withdrawal of bail application with a liberty to file fresh application was neither objected nor subsequent development were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State and/or complainant though they were aware about the same, the same amounts to suppression on their part and, therefore, considering the overall conduct of the original complainant, the present applicant has been made a scapegoat by registering false FIR against him and hence, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail since he is languishing in jail since last 11 months. He further submitted that there are as many as 60 Warrants issued against the original complainant prior to filing of the FIR and the original complainant is also having checkered history, past antecedents and there are FIRs registered against him and he was declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He, therefore, prayed to enlarge the applicant on bail. 11. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. As far as submission of learned APP Ms. Pathak that this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of the applicant by giving cogent reasons and hence, in absence of change of circumstance, the present application may not be entertained, this Court has considered the decision relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Mr. As far as submission of learned APP Ms. Pathak that this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of the applicant by giving cogent reasons and hence, in absence of change of circumstance, the present application may not be entertained, this Court has considered the decision relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Syed of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the High Court can always consider fresh circumstances and subsequent events and the same would be the position regarding the earlier rejections. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the application of the applicant afresh, despite there was previous rejection of application and SLP was withdrawn. In view of subsequent development and coupled with the fact that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate remedy, I have considered this application on the basis of the aforesaid decision coupled with the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.12.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.13654 of 2023. 12. I have considered the fact that there are serious allegations against the present applicant of financial fraud and all other serious allegations in nature, but at the same time, I have also considered the fact that the original complainant has retracted from his version from time to time. In the FIR, the complainant has stated something else which is already recorded in the FIR and while giving deposition before the learned Trial Court on 21.11.2023, the complainant has retracted from his original version which was stated in the FIR and almost gave a clean chit to the applicant. Coupled with the fact that during that time the applicant was on temporary bail, even learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. M. Panchal assisted by Mr. Ekant Ahuja appearing for the original complainant could not dispute the fact that original complainant had given his express consent by remaining present before the coordinate Bench of this Court and thereby temporary bail granted to the applicant was extended vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20372 of 2023. Ekant Ahuja appearing for the original complainant could not dispute the fact that original complainant had given his express consent by remaining present before the coordinate Bench of this Court and thereby temporary bail granted to the applicant was extended vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No.20372 of 2023. Further, on perusal of the record, I found some photographs, genuineness of which are not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent wherein the present applicant and the original complainant are seen together cutting the Cake on 21.11.2023, which is the same date on which deposition of the original complainant was recorded. I have also considered the fact that thereafter on 2.12.2023, the present applicant had filed complaint before the Airport Police Station alleging that he was kidnapped and has been under constant threat. Thereafter, on 5.1.2024, he filed another complaint before the Economic Offence Cell Unit - 4, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City on the same line. Both the said complaints were investigated by the two different Police agencies and both the agencies were of the opinion that there is no substance in the complaints filed by the complainant as the same is not supported by any evidence. The Police authorities have come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the complaint, then prima facie, the theory about the deposition given under threat would fall flat. Therefore, the same would be a vital consideration for grant of bail to the present applicant. 13. I have also considered the fact that there are as many as 60 Warrants issued against the original complainant prior to filing of the FIR and the original complainant is also having checkered history, past antecedents and there are FIRs registered against him and he was declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The aforesaid fact could not be disputed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. M. Panchal assisted by Mr. Ekant Ahuja appearing for the original complainant. Hence, the credibility of the original complainant, prima facie, seems to be little less credible and, therefore, the same is required to be tested by leading evidence. 14. The aforesaid fact could not be disputed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. M. Panchal assisted by Mr. Ekant Ahuja appearing for the original complainant. Hence, the credibility of the original complainant, prima facie, seems to be little less credible and, therefore, the same is required to be tested by leading evidence. 14. Considering the fact that there are number of witnesses i.e. 80 in number to be examined during the trial and though the trial has begun, the completion thereof is likely to take longer time and coupled with the fact that learned Senior Counsel Mr. Syed for the applicant, upon instructions, has made a statement that the applicant shall not enter the territorial limits of Ahmedabad District within a period of 9 months from today except for attending the Court work, I am of the opinion that the same would take care of the interest of free and fair trial as well as it would also ensure that none of the witnesses would face any threat or otherwise from the present applicant. 15. I have also considered the fact that as far as the affidavits filed by the original complainant in respect of other co- accused are not doubted by him nor he had retracted from the genuineness of the said affidavits. What is surprising is on one hand, the complainant has alleged that he was kidnapped and was constantly under threat. But despite having said that, he does not question the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of three other co-accused. Further, the complainant gives consent for extension of temporary bail to the present accused before this Court during the period for which he alleges to have been abducted and was under threat. All these circumstances without expressing any opinion about the genuineness of the same, can certainly be considered as subsequent development and change of circumstance coupled with the fact that the investigation is already over and charge-sheet was filed as back as in the month of July, 2023. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that applicant has volunteered that he shall not enter into the territorial limits of Ahmedabad District for a period of 9 months, except to attend the Court work, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on bail. 16. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that applicant has volunteered that he shall not enter into the territorial limits of Ahmedabad District for a period of 9 months, except to attend the Court work, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicant on bail. 16. As far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra) is concerned, it is clarified that these observations made by this Court are only tentative and prima facie in nature and on the basis of limited material available before this Court, which is always subject to evidence at the stage of trial and, therefore, at the trial, the Trial Court may not be influenced by the aforesaid observations made by this Court as the same are made only in respect of considering the bail application of the present applicant. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11191065230414 of 2023 registered with Narol Police Station, District Ahmedabad on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] furnish latest address as well as permanent address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court; [f] mark his presence before the concerned police station in the first week of every month till the trial is over; [g] shall not enter the territorial limits of Ahmedabad District within a period of 9 months from today, except for attending the Court work; 18. The Authorities will release the applicant only if the applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 19. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.