ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicants accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11203025240054 of 2024 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, District Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 3. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that present applicants are falsely enroped in the offence though transaction involved in the present case is purely a commercial transaction and in this regard accused No.1 has already issued a cheque and in the notice of demand issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”), no reference has been made qua alleged transaction and subsequently in the FIR new story and new grounds have been urged. Further, applicant No.2 happens to be the son of applicant applicant No.1 and has nothing to do with the offence and whatever allegations leveled are against applicant No.1 and therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. Even, the applicants are ready and willing to join the investigation. Co-accused is released on bail. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application of the present applicants on the ground that warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC came to be issued but mere issuance of warrant under Section 70 or 82 of the CrPC as the applicants are absconding, is not a ground to refuse anticipatory bail. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 and requested to allow the present application as the applicants are not having any past antecedent. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that present applicants are masterminds of the entire offence and winning over the trust of the complainant as complainant and applicants are neighbors, they lured him to invest the amount and entered into the transaction. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that present applicants are masterminds of the entire offence and winning over the trust of the complainant as complainant and applicants are neighbors, they lured him to invest the amount and entered into the transaction. Believing the words of applicants, the complainant entered into transaction with the accused persons in which the complainant is duped. Further, the applicants are absconding and even warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC came to be issued against applicants on 07.02.2024 and against applicant No.2, Look Out Circular is issued. Both the applicants are out of reach though ample efforts have been put in by the investigating authority, till date the applicants are not traced out. Even, only applicant No.1 has sworn the affidavit in support of the present application and that too from UAE and therefore, it clearly reveals that he is not available in the country and applicant No.2 has not even sworn affidavit in support of the present application. Even, anticipatory bail application is not filed by accused No.2 and third party has no locus to file any application and hence, present application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. Even otherwise, looking to the allegations leveled against the applicants, it appears that offence of forgery is also invoked. The accused persons are doing business in the name and style of Taj Enterprise and Dangra General Trading. As the complainant and accused persons were known to each other, on an assurance of receiving unrealistic gain and profit given by the accused persons, complainant had given the accused persons stock of oil worth Rs.41,25,176/- and further had paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as advance amount towards purchase of oil however, the complainant has neither received any goods nor any refund of amount and when he went to recover his money, cheque was issued which came to be dishonored for which separate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act have been initiated and is pending. Even, the applicants have issued forged bills and photographs of the tanker through whatsapp and stated that they have supplied the goods and by hatching criminal conspiracy in collusion and connivance of each other, the applicants have committed the offence of cheating of Rs.53,25,176/- and forged bills. Even, the applicants have issued forged bills and photographs of the tanker through whatsapp and stated that they have supplied the goods and by hatching criminal conspiracy in collusion and connivance of each other, the applicants have committed the offence of cheating of Rs.53,25,176/- and forged bills. Considering the aforesaid facts, offence of forgery is also registered. Hence, custodial interrogation of applicants is required to recover the said forged documents and applicants are on run and even look out circular is also issued against applicant No.2 and against applicant No.1 proceedings under Section 70 of the CrPC are going on since 2024 and the applicants have left the country and did not join the investigation and therefore, considering their conduct also, present application is requested to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by both sides. 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 had 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. 6. 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. 6. Going through the FIR, it appears that the complainant has filed the FIR against accused persons wherein it is alleged that the applicants are father and son and they visited the present complainant and winning over the trust of the complainant, made the complainant to give to accused persons stock of oil worth Rs.41,25,176/- and further had paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as advance amount towards purchase of oil however, the complainant has neither received any goods nor any refund of amount and when he went to recover his money, cheque was issued which came to be dishonored for which separate proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act have been initiated and is pending. Hence, prima facie it appears that alleged transaction is not in dispute and is an admitted fact. Now, the fact remains that by winning over the trust of the complainant, applicants have given assurance to supply the goods and for assurance they have supplied the photographs of bills as well as tanker numbers and thereby with intention to deceit the complainant and considering the offence of cheating by forging the invoices with GST numbers sent to the complainant and thereby offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC came to be registered. To recover the said bills and material, custodial interrogation of applicants are required to prove the case of prosecution. 6.1 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that no reference of transaction for which proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act is initiated, is mentioned in the complaint and even the applicant No.2 has nothing to do with the offence but bare reading of the complaint as well as perusing the notice for initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, reference of involvement of applicant No.2 being made wherein also in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the reply to the said notice, same allegations are leveled. Hence, this is not a case wherein the complainant has subsequently leveled allegation against the applicants. Hence, this is not a case wherein the complainant has subsequently leveled allegation against the applicants. In notice under section 138 of the NI Act as well as in the FIR, it is clearly stated that the applicant No.2 has stated through whatsapp that goods are sent through Sainath Roadways, Junagadh and GST bills are also issued and said bills are issued in the name of Taj Enterprise, Daman/Diu and said four bills worth Rs.40,25,176/- were issued. Even, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are also independent proceedings and technical in nature and there is no bar to file a criminal complaint if proceeding under section 138 of the NI Act are pending as the said proceedings are required to be initiated against the drawer of the cheque and herein, the cheque was issued by applicant No.1 and therefore, proceedings are initiated against applicant No.1 wherein also involvement and reference of applicant No.2 is also made. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. vs. State of UP and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 . In the said case it was observed that there is no bar to initiate proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as proceedings u/sec.138 of NI Act are independent one. In the present case, allegation of offence of forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC are also leveled against the applicants. 6.2 Herein, allegation against the applicants is that applicants i.e. father and son had visited the complainant and assured the complainant to earn huge profit by investing in the business of applicants. Not only that, applicant No.2 had sent the photographs and forged bills through whatsapp to the complainant. Prima facie involvement of applicant No.2 is also there and hence, argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicants that applicant No.2 has nothing to do with the business of applicant No.1 is not acceptable. 6.3 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there is no bar to entertain the application merely on the ground of applicants being absconding and in this regard he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey (Supra) . 6.3 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there is no bar to entertain the application merely on the ground of applicants being absconding and in this regard he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey (Supra) . it is needless to say that each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In this regard reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State of A.P. reported in AIR 2004 SC 132 . 6.4 Even, the facts of the case in the matter Asha Dubey (Supra) and facts in the case on hand are quite different. In the case of Asha Dubey (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to clearly observe in paragraph 6 that “it is incorrect to state that pursuant to the interim protection granted, the appellant was not cooperating in the investigation and in fact despite communication sent by the appellant to investigating authority, the investigating authority has not called her for joining the investigation” and making aforesaid observation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to conclusion that the custodial interrogation of the appellant was not required. Considering the aforesaid fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering application for grant of anticipatory bail. 6.5 It is true that there is no total embargo but herein it is an admitted position of fact that applicants have not joined the investigation since February, 2024 and they are on run and even warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC also came to be issued and on 08.08.2024, Look Out Circular is issued against applicant No.2 and therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicants that there is no bar to entertain the application merely on the ground of applicants being absconding is not acceptable in the case on hand considering peculiar facts of the case and hence, decision in the case of Asha Dubey (Supra) would not avail any assistance to the applicants. In this regard, reference is also required to be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784 , Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 , Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, wherein it is observed that as accused remained absconded, this is not a exercise discretion in favor of the accused. 6.6 Further, it is also apposite to refer to the decision of 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 and going through the material very carefully available against the accused it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with view to humiliate or tarnish the image of the present applicants and no frivolity is noticed in the allegations made in the FIR and therefore, as allegation of forgery is there, custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. In the case of Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another , reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicants has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." 7. Further, considering the allegation made in the FIR, for the qualitative investigation, presence of applicants is required and custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, prima facie it appears that accused have played active role and qualitative investigation is necessary in the matter. 7.1 When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused is 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. This Court is conscious about the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal liberty. This Court is conscious about the safeguards provided under Section 482 of the BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, this court is of considered view that, the present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest 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 discovery of material facts and relevant information. In such circumstances, when investigation is at preliminary stage, if anticipatory bail is granted, it may hamper the investigation and to collect the material and more information and to find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary. Therefore, 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 and (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/ s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 , the present application deserves to be dismissed, as custodial interrogation is required. 7.2 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 under Section 438 is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a seal against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. Herein, the allegation against the applicants is that by giving temptation of unrealistic gain and profit by investing in the business of the applicants, accused persons have defalcated the money of the complainant. It is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 wherein it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized. 8. 8. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, as applicants are actively involved in the offence, I have absolutely no doubt that if applicants are equipped with such an order of anticipatory bail before they are interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation. 9. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tampering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.