ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat with learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Salim Saiyed for the first informant.

2. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11210015220114 of 2022 registered with D. C. B. Police Station, Surat City, District Surat City on 01.07.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The applicant having initially approached the learned Sessions Court, praying for the very selfsame relief of being released on anticipatory bail, having not succeeded before the learned Sessions Court, has approached this Court.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Popat with learned Advocate Ms. Lodha would submit that the FIR is in two parts, in as much as one part of the FIR, inter alia alleges that the accused had lured the first informant to invest an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs in the business venture of the accused and whereas the accused have neither returned the principal nor returned the proposed profit/ interest amount to the first informant. The second part is with regard to some alleged offences under Goods and Service Tax Act. Learned Advocates for the applicant would submit that the FIR is a counter blast, more particularly, to a civil liability which has been incurred by one Rizwan Abdulhamid Motiwala, who is joined as a witness by the Investigating Officer, more particularly, the firm of the said witness has given cheques worth approximately Rs. 2 crores to the present applicant and whereas all the cheques having been dishonored.

Learned Advocates for the applicant would further submit that as a matter of fact, the parties to the dispute are having commercial transactions since long and it is on account of certain disputes that the present FIR has been preferred. In any case, the learned Advocates for the applicant would submit that to show his bonafides, the present applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs i.e. half of the principal amount with the learned Trial Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this Court without admitting any liability and without prejudice to all rights and contentions. Learned Advocates for the applicant would further submit that insofar as the allegations under the Goods and Service Tax Act are concerned, the said allegations, would not be within the purview of the Investigating Officer to investigate, more particularly, according to the learned Advocates for the applicant, the said alleged offences, have to be investigated by officers of the concerned department. Learned Advocate Mr. Popat would submit that the FIR having been registered on 01.07.2022 and whereas it appears that the application with regard to the allegations having been submitted even earlier to that, till date there is no notice received by the present applicant from the GST department and therefore, since there is an attempt by the Investigating Officer to investigate into the said offences, this Court may protect the applicant.

6. Submissions of learned Advocates for the applicant have been vehemently opposed by learned APP Mr. Dabhi. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that while there are prima facie allegations made in the FIR with regard to the allurement, and whereas it also appears on basis of the investigation carried out till now that there are witnesses to the transaction between the first informant and the present applicant. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi insofar as the offences under the Goods and Service Tax Act, would submit that while it is undoubtedly true that offences under the Goods and Service Tax Act have to be investigated by officers of the Goods and Service Tax department, at the same time, learned APP Mr. Dabhi would submit that during course of investigation with regard to the allegations, with regard to allurement etc., certain materials have been recovered by the Investigating Officer which would show prima facie involvement of the applicant. Having regard to such contention, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

7. This application is also vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed who would reiterate submissions made by learned APP Mr. Dabhi. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed, in addition to the same, would submit that merely because there are some allegations made in the FIR, with regard to the offences under the Goods and Service Tax Act, the same would not over shadow the principal allegations made in the FIR with regard to the offence punishable under Section 420 etc. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed would submit that in case this Court were inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant then the amount which is sought to be deposited by the applicant before the learned Trial Court, may rather be given to the first informant and whereas the first informant is ready and willing to submit any undertaking for return of the amount as may be deemed appropriate by this Court.

8. Learned Advocate Ms. Lodha on behalf of the present applicant would oppose such a submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed and would submit that at this stage this Court may not direct the applicant to transfer the amount to the first informant and whereas the present applicant would deposit the amount with the learned Trial Court which may at the end of the trial, decide appropriately as to whom should the said amount be given to.

9. Insofar as the request of learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed for directing the said amount to be paid to the present applicant, since the same has been objected to by learned Advocate Ms. Lodha on behalf of the applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to accept the submissions of learned Advocates for the applicant and direct the applicant to deposit such amount to the learned Trial Court without prejudice.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] Insofar as the allegations of allurement etc., prima facie it appears that the present applicant had received some money from the first informant and whereas it also appears that the dispute between the parties, was civil in nature insofar as the said aspect is concerned.

[2] This Court has also considered the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Popat that the present applicant would be without prejudice, willing to deposit half of the amount i.e. Rs. 45 lakhs with the learned Trial Court.

[3] This Court has also considered the submissions that allegations with regard to the possible offences under the Goods and Service Tax Act, would require to be investigated into by the officers of the Goods and Service Tax department, more particularly, as per chapter 14 of the Goods and Service Tax Act. It also requires to be mentioned that the said proposition is also not disputed by the learned APP Mr. Dabhi.

[4] It also appears that no notice has been received by the applicant from the Goods and Service Tax department with regard to the said allegations.

[5] It also appears that there are no antecedents of the present applicant being involved in any criminal activity herein before.

11. In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

12. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11210015220114 of 2022 registered with D. C. B. Police Station, Surat City, District Surat City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09.09.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 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 his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

(h) shall deposit an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs with the learned Trial Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and whereas upon such deposit, the learned Trial Court shall have the amount deposited in the Fixed Deposit account for a long term period, and whereas appropriate directions with regard to disbursement of the amount may be taken by the learned Trial Court at the end of the trial, as per its final decision.

13. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant 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. It is clarified that the applicant, 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.

14. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.