ORDER : Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Asim Pandya with Mr.Gaurav Vyas, learned advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate Mr.Nirav Padhiyar for org. complainant nd learned APP Mr.HK Patel, for respondent – State. 2. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as I-C.R. No.7 of 2022 registered with the CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 114, 120(8), 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(6), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of The Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 (hereafter "GPID Act"). 3. The case of the prosecution as emerging from FIR in nutshell is that one Mr.Vasim Raja as the main accused and is primarily associated with the Ketsaal Retail LLP (for short the company). The accused–Vasim Raja has floated this company. The complainant came in his contact and invested the amount in the said company and had done business since December, 2018 to 2021 and got the investment promise by Vasim Raja even during the difficult period of COVID-19; but once the business of the company has been weaken Mr.Vaim Raja could not pay the compromise returns to the complainant and therefore he has filed the false and frivolous FIR against the present petitioners. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that basically this is an FIR demonstrating that how the business transaction can be converted into the criminal act and action. When narrating this fact, learned senior counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that present petitioners were silent partners of the company and they had never promise to the complainant. They have never lured the complainant to invest any amount in the company. He would further submit that since the petitioners are the silent partners of the company, it could not be said that they have played active role in commission of the offence for luring the complainant to invest the amount. In view of that, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners from the FIR. He would further submit that since the petitioners are the silent partners of the company, it could not be said that they have played active role in commission of the offence for luring the complainant to invest the amount. In view of that, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners from the FIR. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that in fact Vasim Raja could not said to be accused in offence as he has never promised to return any amount; but the complainant on his own invested the amount in the company and since the business could not work properly, lose occurred and therefore there is no question of comitting the offence under Section 406 or there is any criminal breach of trust or forgery or fabricating the documents and to present them as genuine. He would further submit that in absence of intention to disclose or cheat the complainant, prima facie no offence is made out as alleged in the FIR. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that in view of promise cheque worth Rs.12 Crores has been deposited under the GPID Act, 2003; the bungalow jointly occupied by Vasim Raja with the present petitioners has been attached by the authority and value thereof is Rs.15.00 Crore so majority of the amount which is involved in the offence is secured and in view of that present petitioners are secured with the authority and therefore present petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that petitioners are readily available for investigation and would join the investigation as and when required. There is no flight risk if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4.4 Insofar as the issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.PC is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would submit that in a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., [2024 SCC Online SC 282] no absolute ban has been applied in granting anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail where the warrant under Section 70 has been issued. He would further submit that there are some exceptional circumstances and if it is established, the Court can grant the pre-arrest bail to the accused. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., [2024 SCC Online SC 282] no absolute ban has been applied in granting anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail where the warrant under Section 70 has been issued. He would further submit that there are some exceptional circumstances and if it is established, the Court can grant the pre-arrest bail to the accused. 4.5 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya would further submit that though in a present case warrant under Section 70 of Cr.PC has been issued against the petitioners, no legal procedure has been followed by the concerned IO or the Court concerned. Firstly, the summons is required to be issued; then bailable and non-bailable warrant is required to be served. Since the legal procedure has not been followed, issuance of warrant under Section 70 itself is illegal and that by itself is an exceptional circumstances to grant anticipatory bail. He would further submit that process to compel appearance has been defined in Chapter–6 of Cr.PC and Part B is defining warrant of arrest. When Police Officer has to execute the warrant outside the jurisdiction, he has to follow the procedure laid down in Section 79 of Cr.PC which in the present case has not been followed in letter and spirit and therefore, issuance of warrant under Section 70 of Cr.PC is illegal procedure and it would not come in way of petitioners to seek pre-arrest bail. 4.6 Upon above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pandya prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Nirav Padhiyar for complainant would submit that in total Rs.39,19,00,929/- have been swindled and / or siphoned away by the present petitioners alongwith main accused Vasim Raja. He would further submit that this is one of the FIR; apart from this at least four other FIRs are registered against the present petitioners for committing scam. These FIRs are registered in the different parts of the country which indicates that the petitioners are doing the organized white collar crime and this is an economic offence where investment of investors running in crores of rupees have been duped. 5.1 Taking this Court through page no.124, 131, 143 and 157 of the compilation, learned advocate Mr.Padhiyar would submit that there are four other FIRs registered against the petitioners as well alongwith other accused which indicates that he is using the same modus operandi for siphoning of the money. 5.1 Taking this Court through page no.124, 131, 143 and 157 of the compilation, learned advocate Mr.Padhiyar would submit that there are four other FIRs registered against the petitioners as well alongwith other accused which indicates that he is using the same modus operandi for siphoning of the money. He would further submit that main accused Vasim Raja was released by the trial Court after filing of the charge-sheet and upon condition to deposit the amounts. However, Vasim Raja has misused his liberty granted by the trial Court and he did not comply with the condition and run away and therefore learned trial Court has cancelled the bail granted to the accused. He would submit that insofar as the cheques of Rs.12.00 Crores given against promise concerned of the account of the petitioners; the same are empty and there is no amount lying in the petitioners’ bank account which would meet with the clearance of cheque of Rs.12.00 Crores. So, this is an eye-wash to get the bail. He would further submit that in total the investment of 160 persons are siphoned totaling Rs.39.90 Crore is involved in the large-scale economic offence and considering this aspect, the petitioners may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. Addition to the above submissions of learned Advocate Mr.Padhiyar appearing for the org. complainant, learned APP for respondent – State Mr.Patel would submit that it is incorrect to say that the petitioners are not involved in the offence or they are merely silent partners of the company. He would further submit that all three petitioners are partners since 16/08/2017 prior to the investment by the complainant and other victims have started investing the amount. He would submit that one of the petitioners Sohail Raja Khan was consistently in touch with the complainant and other investors and was luring them to invest in the company. All three accused were authorized signatory of the Bank Accounts of company at Noida. One of the accused Mohan Raja Hamid Raja Khan is also the Director in five other sister concerned company and there are inter se transactions between them. Out if siphoning amount of Rs.40/- Crores and odd amount, the petitioners have got some share and this amount are invested in their bank account. One of the accused Mohan Raja Hamid Raja Khan is also the Director in five other sister concerned company and there are inter se transactions between them. Out if siphoning amount of Rs.40/- Crores and odd amount, the petitioners have got some share and this amount are invested in their bank account. He would further submit that a joint bungalow in C-97 Sector Noida has been purchased in the name of accused–Vasim Raja and consideration of the bungalow was paid from the account of the company. In view of this transaction, all the accused are equally responsible in commission of offence. He would further submit that statement of accused–Vasim Raja is totally misconceived statement and cannot be acted upon which reiterating the incident mentioned at page no.124, 131, 143 and 157 of the compilation. 6.1 Learned APP would submit that petitioners are habitual offenders and typical modus operandi is used to dupe the hard earn money of the investors running in crores of rupee and therefore, they may not be granted anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that charge-sheet in the present case is filed on 04/10/2022 before the learned trial Court and therefore warrant under Section 70 of Cr.PC is obtained against the present petitioners and they are running from the investigation. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, person who is running from the investigation should not be granted anticipatory bail and therefore it is submitted that anticipatory bail applications may be rejected. 6.2 Making above submissions, learned APP would submit to reject this application. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the rival sides, at the outset, it is to be noted that as many as four identical FIRs are registered against the present petitioners before the different Police Stations and in the different parts of the country; list of which reads thus: Name of Police Station FIR Number Offences alleged Sukher Police Station, Udepur 0250/2022 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code Kotwali Police Station, Johnpur 0225/2022 419, 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code Kotwali Police Station, Barabanki the Indian Penal Code 1018/2022 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 406 of STF, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 0044/2022 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 21(3) and 22 of the Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 8. It is sought to be established that petitioners are habitual offender and by luring the investors, they are duping the money of the investors. It is undeniable aspect that warrant under Section 70 of Cr.PC has been issued by the concerned trial Court against the present petitioners. The issuance of warrant was never challenged by present petitioners and therefore, petitioners are not legally entitled to challenge the legality of issuance of warrant in the bail proceedings. To be noted further that, in a case where charge-sheet is filed in the year 2022 and petitioners are on run, warrant under section 70 of Cr.PC has been issued by the trial Court after specifying the material available with IO. Learned APP Mr.Patel has tried to elaborate this issue by arguing that fore more than once the IO went to the house of the accused to find out the petitioners; but the family members of the petitioners replied that they are not in touch with them and in that event in absence of any alternative, IO has approached the trial Court for seeking warrant under Section 70; which trial Court has grated after satisfying with the material available on record. It cannot be gainsaid that petitioners are not co- operating in the investigation where the offence involved of duping the hard earned money of the investors running in crores. 9. In Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (supra), in paragraph 24 the Hon’ble Apex court has held as under: “24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in Licenced to : Adv.Urvashi Purohit . Page 10 of 10 extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.” 10. Petitioners are concealing from investigation. They are treated as absconding. In the charge-sheet, they are shown as absconder which prima facie establish that petitioners are running from the investigation, they could not given relief of anticipatory bail being extraordinary in nature. Useful reference can be taken from the judgment Prem Shanker Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2022 14) SCC 516 and Lavesh Versus State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) [ 2012 (8) SCC 730 ]. In Lavesh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex court has observed in paragraph 10 as under: “10. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.” Applying the above ratio to the present case, it reveals that the petitioners are on run and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. The conduct of main accused – Vasim Raja would also require to be noticed because the bail has been granted by the learned trial Court on 19/02/2024 and he is on run. That apart, this is a huge economic scam. The petitioners have lured the investors to invest their money and initially by giving them returns obtained them into confidence and thereafter investment have been duped. To be noted that all the accused are on run. 11. It was tried to pursued by learned senior counsel Mr.Pandya for the petitioners that the bungalow is jointly owned by the petitioners with other accused and therefore amount of investors which are alleged to have been duped is secured. This submission has no relevance with granting of bail. It is not at the instance of the petitioners that the said bungalow was attached. The authority under the proceedings of GPID have attached the bungalow and it is a legal procedure which authority is required to undertake under the Act and therefore, it could not come to the rescue of the present petitioners. It is incorrect to say that because of the bungalow owned by the petitioner is attached, he could be given the bail. 12. One more strange arguments is canvassed that since the procedure under part-B of Chapter – 7 of Cr.PC has not been followed, issuance of summons under Section 70 can be termed as illegal procedure. Without questioning the issuance of warrant under section 70 such word cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioners who are on run from the investigation. This tactful words cannot be attract the extraordinary discretion of this Court to grant pre-arrest bail. 13. This is a sheer economic offence designed with cool mind and executed systematically to dupe / swindle the hard-earn money of the investors and therefore, it could be viewed from the different angle. Questioning the exercise of discretion in the economic offence, the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement [2024 (0) AIR(SC) 169] after referring earlier decisions has held in paragraph 22 and 23 as under: “22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 , Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751 . This court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, (1987) 2 SCC 364 as under:- "5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. 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. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..." 23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.” 14. In case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2015 SC 3090 , the Hon’ble Apex Court delineated the following factors and parameters that needs to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail. “(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail.” 15. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21, observed as under:- “21. 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.” 16. In case of P.Chidambaram Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation [ 2020 (13) SCC 337 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 22 as under: "22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In case of P.Chidambaram Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation [ 2020 (13) SCC 337 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 22 as under: "22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280 ). There is no Licenced to : Adv.Urvashi Purohit . Page 8 of 11 hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that "flight risk" of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.” 17. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused, but several other purposes. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to "flight risk" is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.” 17. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused, but several other purposes. Power u/s 438 of the Code is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercise sparingly in appropriate and fit case. This privilege should be extended only in exceptional cases. It is a judicial discretion conferred upon the court, and it is to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of the applicant fleeing from 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. 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. Striking of balance of investigation and personal liberty is another factor needs to be properly weigh. The fact of the case demands custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 18. For the foregoing reasons, present petition fails and stands dismissed.