ORDER : 1. By way of the present successive anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11193063230003 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Rajkot. 2.1 The FIR is lodged by Mr. Rashminbhai Pramodsinh Pathiyar against seven persons. The petitioner is arraigned as accused no.5 in the said FIR. In the said FIR, the first informant claimed that before about 4½ years, Mr. Pankaj Jitendra Gohil of town Damnagar was polishing diamond at the factory of his father and thereafter there was a development of friendship with the first informant. However, after sometime the said person stopped working with the first informant and had gone to Surat. Before about 1½ year, said Mr. Pankaj Gohil visited the first informant at his residence and informed that he wanted to constitute and incorporate one company named and called as Ignite Game. It was also informed that, if anybody invest money in the said company, one would receive good returns. Said Mr.Pankaj Gohil also informed the first informant that he has two four wheel cars and has his own residence and has several other amenities. The first informant stated that he asked Mr. Pankaj Gohil about the sum, where Mr. Pankaj Gohil informed that, he alongwith his friend Mr. Hardik Vijay Vaghela, resident of Bhavnagar, have joined hands. 2.2 Mr. Hardik Vaghela was the Software Developer and he proposed to float Crypto Currency in the name of Ignite Game. Mr. Hardik Gohil informed that he has already prepared a software. It is the say of the first informant that said Mr. Hardik Gohil informed that alongwith Mr. Ganesh Bipin Joshi and Mr. Kalpesh of village Juvadar, Taluka Gadhada; Mr. Kalpesh Vasoya of village Halasiya; Mr. Satish Pratap Joshi Gol, resident of Timbarla, Santrampur, Panchmahal; Mr. Jagdish Madhubhai Narola, petitioner herein and Mr. Ghanshyam Vinubhai Nadoda are the partners in the said company. Since Mr. Hardik Vaghela, who is the Software Developer, is the partner, if the first informant invests money in the said company, he would get good returns. Relying upon said statement of Mr. Pankaj Gohil, Mr. Jayraj Barad; Mr. Praap Parmar; Mr. Vishnu Pari Goswami; Mr. Jayraj Parmar and Mr. Raj Dixit agreed to invest the money in Ignite Game. Since Mr. Hardik Vaghela, who is the Software Developer, is the partner, if the first informant invests money in the said company, he would get good returns. Relying upon said statement of Mr. Pankaj Gohil, Mr. Jayraj Barad; Mr. Praap Parmar; Mr. Vishnu Pari Goswami; Mr. Jayraj Parmar and Mr. Raj Dixit agreed to invest the money in Ignite Game. The first informant was informed that the investment made would be double within a period of 10 months and when anybody needs the money back, no cash would be paid, but same would be repaid in US DT, Bit Coin, BNB, TRON, ETHERIUM and BELIVER. The first informant was informed that all aforestated are the Crypto Currency and it will be converted as per the instruction of the investor. The first informant was inclined to invest the money, however, he had no knowledge about the Crypto Currency and, therefore, the first informant was informed that the first informant may pay him cash and he would login with the password and ID and he can see his balance of Crypto Currency on his ID with password. He was further informed that the ID would be only provided on the investment of 100 USDT. Therefore, the first informant and his brother Mr. Karansinh had paid money of Rs.3.20 lakhs in July, 2021; Rs.5 lakhs on July 25, 2021; Rs. 5 lakhs; Rs.10 lakhs on August 22, 2021; Rs. 5 lakhs on September 09, 2021; Rs.7 lakhs on September 28, 2021; Rs.6.40 lakhs on October 15, 2021; Rs.5.40 lakhs on November 10, 2021, in all paid Rs.42 lakhs at his residence at Damnagar and, therefore, there were 552 different IDs in the name of the first informant. The first informant further stated that by using his ID with password, the first informant would be able to see the balance of his Crypto Currency. However, before about five months from the date of lodging of the FIR, Mr. Pankaj Gohil was not picking up his mobile phone and he was not able to be contacted. Therefore, as per the first informant, the first informant met Mr.Jagdish Narola, Mr. Ghanshyam Nadoda; Mr. Satish Gol; Mr. Bipin Joshi and Mr. Kalpesh Vasoya and informed about Mr. Pankaj Gohil and Mr. Hardik Vaghela. At that point of time, said persons informed that Mr. Pankaj Gohil and Mr. Therefore, as per the first informant, the first informant met Mr.Jagdish Narola, Mr. Ghanshyam Nadoda; Mr. Satish Gol; Mr. Bipin Joshi and Mr. Kalpesh Vasoya and informed about Mr. Pankaj Gohil and Mr. Hardik Vaghela. At that point of time, said persons informed that Mr. Pankaj Gohil and Mr. Hardik Vaghela are residing at Dubai and they are trying to uplift Ignite Game and the first informant shall not worry and the first informant would get his money back. The first informant was also informed that Mr. Sanjay Datt is the Brand Ambassador and he further informed that Mr. Pankaj Gohil has given the cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank Bank Account bearing No.1312541700 being cheque no.000036 dated July 18, 2022 for Rs.15 lakhs, and informed that the first informant can retain said cheque as a guarantee. However, the first informant was thereafter informed that the company has gone bankrupt and, therefore, no money could be returned. The said cheque of Rs.15 lakhs was sought to be encashed, however, the same was returned because of interpolation. The first informant further stated that the facebook account and place of Ignite Game was changed and, therefore, he could not contact the partner Mr. Sanjay Gol. However, nobody could be contacted and, therefore, the first informant lost an amount of Rs.42 lakhs and, therefore, the first informant lodged the aforesaid FIR. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. BM Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. HK Patel. 4. In this successive bail application, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that no single rupee transaction has been taken place with the present petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as partner of the company, but in fact, he is not partner of the company and has not done anything, the main accused is Mr. Pankaj Gohil. He would further submit that even in the FIR, it is not stated that as partner, the petitioner has siphoned money of the complainant or victim. He would further submit that the other accused, who are similarly situated in the alleged offence, namely, Ghanshyam Nadoda, Hardik Waghela, Kalpesh Vasoya and Satish Gol have been enlarged on anticipatory bail or regular bail by the concerned Court. He would further submit that amongst them, Satish Gol has been given bail by this Court recently on 14.2.2024, subsequent to bail application withdrawn by the petitioner on 8.2.2024. He would further submit that amongst them, Satish Gol has been given bail by this Court recently on 14.2.2024, subsequent to bail application withdrawn by the petitioner on 8.2.2024. Therefore, principle of parity attracts in the present case and since, the present petitioner has not played any better role than the role, which was alleged against the above stated persons, upon principle of parity, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail in this successive bail application. 5. In addition to above, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya would further argue that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. He would further submit that the petitioner is the permanent residents of Katargam, Surat and there is no flight risk, the petitioner has deep root in the society and therefore, it is submitted to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned APP seriously opposing granting of bail in successive bail application, would submit that there is no change of circumstances. He would further submit that the learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to bring on record any change of circumstances. The petitioner has earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No.2692 of 2024 before this Court for getting anticipatory bail. said application was withdrawn on 8.2.2024 and subsequent thereto, circumstance is not changed and therefore, present successive bail application is not maintainable. 7. Learned APP would further submit that as far as submission of parity is concerned, it could not be drawn in favour of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the role played by the present petitioner is almost near to the main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil. Referring to the documents on record, learned APP would submit that the role of the petitioner is coming from the statement of the co-accused namely Mr. Hetal, whereby, he has clearly mentioned that the petitioner was actively associated with Mr. Pankaj Gohil – main accused. He would further submit that the present petitioner has also gone to Dubai along with Mr. Pankaj Gohil and also approached the agency, where international market of Ignite Block Chain could be flouted, so to that circumstances, since the petitioner has played active and major role in commission of the offence along with Mr. Pankaj Gohil – main accused, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, more particularly, in absence of any change of circumstances. 8. Pankaj Gohil – main accused, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, more particularly, in absence of any change of circumstances. 8. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, at the outset, it is to be noticed that at earlier point of time, the present petitioner has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.2692 of 2024 before this Court for getting anticipatory bail on 8.2.2024. However, learned advocate for the petitioner, under the instructions, has withdrawn the anticipatory bail application and therefore, this Court has passed following order on 8.2.2024. “Rule. Learned APP waives service for the Respondent. 1. Learned Advocate, Mr. Barejia, appearing for the applicant, under the instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this application. 2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. This application stands disposed of, as withdrawn. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case of the applicant. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. 9. Thus, it is successive bail application. At this juncture, I may refer to the judgment in case of GR Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2021(16) SCC 725 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to the successive bail application, has observed and held as under:- “7. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.” 10. Profitable reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court in case of Arun Ghisalal Verma vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 SCC Online Guj 6224, wherein this Court in regards to the successive bail application after surveying to earlier judgments, deal with the ground of alleged change of circumstances. Para 8.2 and 8.3 is material, which reads as under:- “8.2 Hence, it is necessary to first of all deal with the submissions based on the ground of alleged “change in circumstances. Para 8.2 and 8.3 is material, which reads as under:- “8.2 Hence, it is necessary to first of all deal with the submissions based on the ground of alleged “change in circumstances. 8.3 Before considering the submission, it would be appropriate to take note of and to keep in focus that for maintaining a successive bail application what is necessary, as observed by the Apex Court, is “substantive change” and not mere “cosmetic change” or “peripherial change” in the erstwhile circumstances and that the change ought to be such which would have “impact on the previous decision.” In the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad [2001 (7) SC 673], the Apex Court has observed that:- “.......successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier Judgment which is not permissible under Criminal Law “ The Apex Court has further explained the concept of “change in circumstance” in the case of Kalyan Chanrda Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [ 2005 (3) GLH 601 ] and the Apex Court has observed and held that:- “19. ...... Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country.” Thus, the position which emerges from the decisions is that to maintain successive bail application, there must be, (a) change in fact situation or in law; (b) the change should be such which would require that the earlier view need to be interfered with. (c) or when the earlier view has become absolute. (c) or when the earlier view has become absolute. (d) the change must be substantial and must have direct impact on the earlier decision. (e) and should not be merely cosmetic change of little or no consequence. (f) successive application cannot be filed on the same ground on which the previous application/s were rejected/withdrawn. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has to be examined by applying above litmus test.” 11. Now, let us examine that whether this successive bail application has met with the above criteria and is there any substantive change of circumstances. 12. To be noted that the petitioner came out with a case that subsequent to withdrawal of the bail application, one accused Mr. Satish Gol has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court considering that main accused is Mr. Pankaj Gohil, whether, it could be considered as a change of circumstances. The obvious answer is no. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioner has failed to point out any different ground than the ground, which was examined at the earlier point of time. Therefore, successive bail application cannot be entertained. 13. Be that as it may, even on merits, if we go through the record of the case, it appears that the statement of co-accused Mr. Hardik Waghela clearly earmarked the role played by the petitioner. According to the statement of the co-accused Hardik Waghela, present petitioner is close associate of main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil. He went to Dubai with Mr. Pankaj Gohil to promote the company in the international market. Along with co-accused Mr. Hardik, present petitioner and main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil stayed at Dubai for 10 days to promote Ignite Block Chain and has organized several meetings. But, co-accused Mr. Hardik Waghela returned to Bhavnagar and went to Dubai once again along with present petitioner to finalize PR agency for marking Ignite Block Chain. The deal could not be materialized and therefore, co-accused Mr. Hardik returned to India, but petitioner stayed in Dubai along with main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil. The relationship of the petitioner with main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil was much stronger than the relationship of other accused, but it turned sour in March – April, 2022 and therefore, the petitioner informed main accused Mr. Hardik returned to India, but petitioner stayed in Dubai along with main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil. The relationship of the petitioner with main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil was much stronger than the relationship of other accused, but it turned sour in March – April, 2022 and therefore, the petitioner informed main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil that he is going to withhold the entire work of website www.ignite.info related to Ignite Block Chain and the petitioner has invited Mr. Hardik Waghela to work with him and promised for good returns. The petitioner then started working with co-accused Mr. Hardik Waghela and became CEO of the Ignite Block Chain. 14. The FIR indicates that innocent persons were duped to the tune around Rs.42 lakh in name of Ignite Game Crypto Currency. The name of Ignite Game was changed to Ignite Block Chain and further it was changed to Ignite Game. So considering this aspect which is emerging from the record, it prima facie appears that the role of the present petitioner is equal to the role played by the main accused Mr. Pankaj Gohil and they have duped huge money of the innocent persons and therefore, on merit also, the successive bail application is not maintainable. 15. 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. 16. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. 16. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held as follows: "The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC 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. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also 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. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC 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. Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC 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 the 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 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". 17. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.