ORDER : HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J. 1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the respective respondents. 2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I- C.R.No.11208052240585 of 2024 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot for the punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Dwarkesh Enterprise and is engaged in the wholesale mobile business. During the course of business, the complainant came into contact with Accused No. 1, and a business relationship developed. Between March 2024 and June 2024, the complainant conducted business transactions amounting to Rs.7,55,000/- for mobile phones and other accessories. However, when the complainant sought recovery of the amount, Accused No. 1 refused to repay it and allegedly committed the said offence. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has no involvement in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. The offence is punishable by up to seven years. No notice under Section 35 of the BNS has been issued. The alleged transaction is a commercial transaction. The applicant holds an Udyam Registration Certificate and has purchased mobile phones from the complainant. Out of the total amount of Rs.27,55,000/-, the applicant has already paid Rs.26,66,227/- to the complainant, leaving a balance of only Rs.90,773/-, which the applicant is ready and willing to pay. It is submitted that Accused No. 2, who happens to be the father of the present applicant and played a similar role, has been released on bail. In view of the above, the applicant prays for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State and learned advocate appearing for the original complaiannt has opposed the application. The learned APP has produced on record a report prepared by J.J. Gohil, Police Sub-Inspector, Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City and submitted that the applicant is directly involved in the offense. The applicant was initially served by the notice under Section 35 of the BNS, but he did not join the investigation. The learned APP has produced on record a report prepared by J.J. Gohil, Police Sub-Inspector, Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City and submitted that the applicant is directly involved in the offense. The applicant was initially served by the notice under Section 35 of the BNS, but he did not join the investigation. The role of the present applicant is quite different from that of his father, who is accused No.2 in the FIR. The applicant received an Apple MacBook and 70 mobile phones worth Rs.27,55,000 from the complainant. However, he has not paid the complainant for the said mobile phones. Therefore, this is not merely a case of a commercial transaction but also one where the applicant misled the investigating officer. Furthermore, he sold mobile phones with the same IMEI numbers to another retailer by forging a bill from OnePlus Company. By using the forged bill and false IMEI numbers, he resold the mobile phones, even though the complainant had already sold them to him. The investigation revealed that the applicant sold seven mobile phones to a shop owner using fraudulent bills. Verification showed discrepancies, as the complainant had purchased only two phones from OnePlus, while others were from Amazon and Reliance Digital. The accused provided fake invoices to mislead the shop owner. In this regard, statements from the retailers have also been recorded. Considering the aforesaid facts, custodial interrogation is required. The present applicant has prepared forged bills in the name of SMK Mobiles and, to mislead the investigation, has sold 63 mobile phones without bills. The said muddamal is yet to be recovered. Hence, considering the conduct of the present applicant and the fact that the offense involves criminal breach of trust and forgery, which are punishable by more than seven years, custodial interrogation is necessary. Twice notice under Section 35 has been issued, but he has not joined the investiation. It is submitted that the present applicant is involved in illegal activities. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. It is submitted that the present applicant is involved in illegal activities. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. So far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, 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 and 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 and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant of 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 are required to be considered. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that The accused, Sohambhai and Prakashbhai Godaliya, built trust with the complainant, a wholesale mobile seller, by making timely payments initially. Between March and June 2024, they purchased 70 mobile phones and three MacBooks worth Rs.27,55,000 but failed to pay despite repeated demands. This led to charges of fraud and breach of trust. 8. In view of the above, it appears that the initial FIR was filed under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS. At that time, a Notice under Section 35 of the BNS was issued, but the applicant did not join the investigation. During the investigation, it was found that the applicant had received 70 mobile phones from the complainant. Out of these, only seven mobile phones have been traced, while the remaining 63 are yet to be recovered. The applicant also forged bills to sell the said mobile phones and attempted to mislead the investigation. Various forged bills for mobile phones were prepared, and in order to recover the 63 missing mobile phones, custodial interrogation is required. Out of these, only seven mobile phones have been traced, while the remaining 63 are yet to be recovered. The applicant also forged bills to sell the said mobile phones and attempted to mislead the investigation. Various forged bills for mobile phones were prepared, and in order to recover the 63 missing mobile phones, custodial interrogation is required. As the applicant has shown a lackadaisical approach in joining the investigation and has intentionally committed the offence for monetary gain through illegal activities, thereby duping innocent persons, custodial interrogation is necessary in the interest of society as well as the complainant. 9. Regarding the argument made by the learned advocate for the applicant that accused No. 2, the father of the applicant, has been released on bail and, therefore, the present applicant may also be granted bail on the ground of parity, it is noted that the offence committed by accused No. 2 pertains only to abetment in cheating, and he has not forged any documents. While the objective of anticipatory bail is to prevent humiliation and protect personal liberty, the interests of society must also be taken into consideration. 10. Considering the the fact that the charges levelled against the applicant are that the applicant has Purchased 70-Mobile Phones amounting to Rs. 27,55,000/- from the complainant, and thereafter the applicant has not paid the consideration amount of said mobile phones to the complainant and committed offence punishable U/s. 316(2) & 318 (4) of B.N.S. Act". The charges levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. Moreover, the applicant is named in the F.I.R. from the beginning and yet investigation is going on. Further, the Ld. A.P.P. for the Opponent State that; has shown an apprehension that; the investigation is going on and pending the investigation, if the applicant is released on bail, possibility of hamper and tamper with the evidence and case of prosecution case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, having regard to the submission of the parties, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and the applicant was initially served by the notice under Section 35 of the BNS, but he did not join the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to the grant of temporary bail. 10. 10. In view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a case of falsely implicating him to humiliate or tarnish his image. Rather, sufficient material, including the forg bills, establishes his role in the offense. Therefore, the question of granting parity to the applicant does not arise, as he is a habitual offender who earns money through illegal activities. 11. Considering the applicant’s involvement, this is not a case where discretion should be exercised in his favor. His actions were motivated purely by personal gain, disregarding the larger public interest. If released on bail, there is a strong possibility that he may tamper with evidence and re-engage in similar illegal activities. 12. The accused is suspected of aiding in the crime, and a detailed examination of the accused is required. As applicant is accused of criminal breach of trust and defrauding innocent individuals on a large scale, custodial interrogation is required. The government has opposed granting anticipatory bail, arguing that it could delay the investigation, lead to tampering with evidence, or influence witnesses. Releasing the applicant at this stage would hinder the investigating agency from conducting a proper custodial interrogation. 13. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 438 of the CrPC and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, I am of the considered of view that, the present offence is committed very smartly which is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved at and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information. 14. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information. 14. In such circumstances, when investigation is in preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable 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 and (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 the 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. 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 prearrest 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" 15. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under: 19. 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, italso presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. 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, italso 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 the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, reported in (2023)6 SCC 49 , the right of custodial interrogation is very important right of the investigating agency to unearth the truth and which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Hence, police custody for interrogation is necessary. Here in the case on hand, complainant has lost his hard earned income and to recover the said amount, custodial interrogation is necessary. It is also important to refer the decision of Manik Madhukar Sarve vs Vithal Damuji Meher, reported in 2024 INSC 636 . In the case of economic offence, many time amount is diverted or siphoned off in different accounts and for that custodial interrogation is required which is an important tool to trace out the amount. 17. Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/ s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 . Herein, I have gone through the material available against the accused very carefully and it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with view to humiliating or tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , Honourable Supreme Court pleased to hold: "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , Honourable Supreme Court pleased to hold: "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatorybail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." 18. The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order of pre arrest bail is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society as the alleged involvement of lage amount is yet to be traced out and amount has been siphoned and so far as it is an economic offence and there is involvement of money, applicant required to be visited class apart. In this regard the Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364 , the Court in para 5 has observed that: “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 with- out 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.” 19. This Court is of the considered view that if the present accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative investigation as applicant is having trained legal mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution and here two accused are still out of reach, who are directly connected with the present accused and other co-accused. 20. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court has absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. 21. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule discharged.