ORDER : 1. Since, both the matters arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 1.1 Rule. Learned APPs waive service for the Respondent- State and learned Advocate, Ms. Jemini Patel, waives service for the First Informant in both the petitions. 1.2 By way of the present petitions, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR, registered as C.R. No. 11191035230355 of 2023 with Naroda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City, under Section 406, 420, 409, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner, namely Jagdihbhai Jethabhai Chauhan, submitted that he is not named in the FIR and as such, he is innocent. It was submitted that the name of Jagdishbhai was proposed as a trustee of the Trust, however, since, the Charity Commissioner did not accept the Change Report, he could not become the trustee. It was submitted that the role of Jagdishbhai was to collect cash amount from various departments of the hospital run by the Trust and to deposit the same in the bank account of the Trust, however, in the FIR it is alleged that instead so doing, Jagdishbhai gave such amounts to accused No.1, namely Bharatsinh Talakinh Gohil, and thereby, a huge amount is alleged to have been siphoned by Jagdishbhai and other accused persons. It was submitted that, however, there is no material on record to indicate that Jagdishbhai siphoned or misappropriated any amount of the Trust. It was submitted that one of the co-accused, namely Jigar Sandipkumar Jain, has been granted pre-arrest bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12185 of 2023, whereas, another co-accused, namely Pravin Ramabhai Patel, has been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.08.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11724 of 2023. It was, further, submitted that on the basis of the calculation made by the concerned C.A., which is of notional in nature, it is being alleged that the huge amount has been siphoned or misappropriated. 2.1 Insofar as the petitioner, namely Ambeshkumar Popatlal Panchal, is concerned, learned Advocate, Mr. Application No. 11724 of 2023. It was, further, submitted that on the basis of the calculation made by the concerned C.A., which is of notional in nature, it is being alleged that the huge amount has been siphoned or misappropriated. 2.1 Insofar as the petitioner, namely Ambeshkumar Popatlal Panchal, is concerned, learned Advocate, Mr. Bharda, submitted that the Ambeshbhai was supposed to make only the entries in the books of account and to forward the same to the C.A. and therefore, it cannot be said that Ambeshbhai has siphoned any amount. It was submitted that Ambeshbhai has no role at all to play in the commission of the alleged offence. It was submitted that in the case of Ambeshbhai, at the most, it can be said that there appears to be dereliction from duty and nothing more. It was submitted that the other co-accused have already been granted either anticipatory or regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2.2 It was also jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that the FIR in question is filed by the First Informant, who was in USA, at the relevant point of time. It was also submitted that the petitioners already once appeared before the concerned IO and they are further ready and willing to cooperate with the IO, if required. It was submitted that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Ahmedabad city, having movable and immovable properties and therefore, it was submitted that considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed qua some of the accused persons and as the investigation is practically over and the evidence is lying in the safe custody of the prosecution, considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioners, the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Ms. Gemini Patel, appearing for the First Informant strongly opposed these petitions and submitted that the present petitioners are the masterminds behind the crime. It was submitted that, taking advantage of the situation prevailing at the time of Covid-19 pandemic, the present petitioners and the co-accused admitted and treated the patients in the hospital run by the Trust, without registering the same, and obtained huge amounts from such patients and then, misappropriated the same. It was submitted that, taking advantage of the situation prevailing at the time of Covid-19 pandemic, the present petitioners and the co-accused admitted and treated the patients in the hospital run by the Trust, without registering the same, and obtained huge amounts from such patients and then, misappropriated the same. It was submitted that it is a well-designed crime by all the accused persons, including the present petitioners, to siphon the money belonging to the Trust. It was, further, submitted that, during Covid-19 pandemic, all the hospitals were running beyound their capacities and hence, it cannot be believed that the hospital run by the Trust received less amount, than it usually use to receive. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, it was submitted that the main accused is given anticipatory bail, only on the ground of his poor health, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with him. So far as the other accused persons, who have been granted regular bail, is concerned, it was submitted that they were granted regular bail, pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet and therefore, their case shall not apply in the case of the present petitioners, who are seeking anticipatory bail. Thereby, it was submitted that considering the serious nature of offence, these petitions be dismissed. 3.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Mr. H.K. Patel and M. A.V. Patel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in respective petition, adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the First Informant and opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It was submitted that pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the government appointed a C.A., so as to assess the scale of embezzlement done by the accused persons, including the present petitioners and the assessment of the C.A. indicates that there is embezzlement to the tune of Rs.1,000,000,00/-. It was submitted that the accounts registers, for the relevant period, are missing and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be necessary. It was, therefore, prayed that these petitions be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 409 of the IPC, with which the petitioners and the co-accused are charged, on successful conviction at the end of trial shall entail punishment upto ten years’ imprisonment. It was, therefore, prayed that these petitions be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 409 of the IPC, with which the petitioners and the co-accused are charged, on successful conviction at the end of trial shall entail punishment upto ten years’ imprisonment. The entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and since, charge-sheet has already been filed qua some of the accused persons, it can be said that the investigation is practically over and the evidence is lying in the safe custody of the prosecution. Here, it is also pertinent to note that two of the co-accused, namely Jigar Sandipkumar Jain and Pravin Ramabhai Patel, have been granted pre-arrest and regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 02.09.2023 and 23.08.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12185 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 11724 of 2023. 4.1 Here, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 02.09.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12185 of 2023, which reads thus; “(1) present applicant is Chartered Accountant and he has rendered his professional services. Whatever allegations levelled against the applicant are that he has not conducted the audit with due care and diligence which is resulted into misappropriation of an amount and except these there is no any allegation made qua emblazenment of amount or misappropriation of amount qua the present applicant; (2) Alleged offence is in connection with the financial transaction and based on the documentary evidence; (3) offence is purely based on documentary evidence and offence is not punishable under life or death imprisonment; and (4) whatever allegation levelled against the applicant is accepted on face of it, it reveals only the negligence in conducting the accounts of trust.” 4.1.1 Since, the present petitioners are similarly situated persons, in the opinion of this Court, the principle of parity shall apply in their case. 4.2 The main argument on the part of the prosecution is that the books of accounts, for the relevant time period, are not available and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners shall be necessary. 4.2 The main argument on the part of the prosecution is that the books of accounts, for the relevant time period, are not available and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners shall be necessary. However, that alone cannot be a ground to deny the anticipatory bail to the present petitioners, more particularly, when there is nothing coming out on the record, as to what attempts have been made by the concerned IO to trace the books of accounts, i.e. whether, had he called any accused persons or any other witnesses etc., but, there is nothing concrete available on the record. 4.3 So far as the allegations leveled against the petitioner- Jagdishbhai are concerned, as noted above, though, he was proposed to be a trustee of the Trust, as the concerned Charity Commissioner did not accept the change report, he could not be made a trustee and the said aspect is not being disputed by the other side. So far as the allegations leveled against Jagdishbhai is concerned, it is alleged that after collecting the amounts from different departments of the hospital run by the Trust, instead of depositing the same in the bank accounts of the Trust, he gave the same to accused No.1- Bharatsinh Talakinh Gohil. Here, it is to be noted that before depositing the amounts received from different departments of the hospital run by the Trust, such amounts have to be gathered at one place and then to the concerned bank accounts of the Trust. However, the concerned IO has failed to bring on record any such mechanism existing in the Trust. It is pertinent to note that the co-accused, namely Pravin Ramabhai Patel, who has similar role to that of the accused, has already been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, of course, after filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners shall be entitled to claim parity with him. 4.4 It is clear that even after the present petitioners are granted bail, the concerned IO can always ask for their remand and therefore, as such there is no bar going to be created in conducting further investigation. 5. 4.4 It is clear that even after the present petitioners are granted bail, the concerned IO can always ask for their remand and therefore, as such there is no bar going to be created in conducting further investigation. 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though, at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, I have, prima facie, considered the aspects, as noted herein above, to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. This Court while exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.’, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the the case of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab’, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 . Vs. State of Punjab’, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 . This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down in the case of ‘Sushila Agarwal v/s. State (NCT of Delhi’, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 . 8. In the result, the present petitions are ALLOWED by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R. No. 11191035230355 of 2023 with Naroda Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City,, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the petitioners : (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th February, 2024, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the petitioner. The petitioner shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the petitioner, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 10. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed by the petitioner, the concerned learned Judge will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 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 time of trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while granting the petitioner on bail. Direct service is permitted.