Oral Order

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.

2. By way of the present successive application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210015250083 of 2025registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat City for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ronith Joy for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the respondent - State.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Joy submits that by way of preferring instant successive application, the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail. He submits that since this Court was not inclined to entertain the earlier application, the said application has been withdrawn by the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Joy submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant, in connivance with broker viz. Hemish Navinchandra Fafolawala and Prakash Khamnilal Purohit, hatched a conspiracy with a sole intent to achieve their common goal of defrauding various traders and thereby applicant has purchased the goods worth Rs.2,02,01,742/- from 44 traders as well as goods worth Rs.3,89,578/- from the complainant on credit and thereafter without making the payment of the aforesaid goods, the applicant ran away. Learned advocate Mr. Joy has drawn the attention of this Court to ground F of the petition and submitted that the instant successive application is filed on the grounds of change of circumstances. The first ground is that at the time of preferring earlier application, it was not pointed out that two co- accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail and another ground is that in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have, in connivance with each other, committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs.2.05,91,320/-, whereas, in the recent affidavit filed by the investigating officer, the said amount is shown to be Rs.1,44,34,804/-. He further submits that thus on the aforesaid change of circumstances, present application is preferred. He submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the so- called incident is occurred during the period between 20.03.2025 to 21.04.2025, whereas, FIR is registered on 18.06.2025. Thus, there is gross delay in registering the FIR. He further submits that the transaction in question is commercial transaction, however, by way of registering the FIR in question, the complainant has tried to give criminal colour to purely a civil dispute. He submits that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating officer. The applicant is a businessman and having no past antecedents. He further submits that charge-sheet is also filed. He, therefore, submits that considering the aforesaid overall facts of the present case, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

5. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma has objected present application with vehemence and forcefully submitted that involvement of the present applicant is clearly found out from the papers of investigation. He further submits that this is the successive anticipatory bail and since this Court was not inclined to entertain the earlier application filed by the applicant, the same was withdrawn by the applicant. He further submits that in fact there is no change of circumstances and only on this count, the Hon'ble Court may not have to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. He further submits that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, has committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust and after receiving goods worth more than rupees two crore, he did not make the payment of the said goods to the concerned 44 traders as well as complainant. He further submits that the conduct of the present petitioner is also required to be seen. He submits that the FIR is filed on 08.06.2025 and we are in the month of February, 2026 and after lapse of period of more than 8 months, the applicant is absconding. He further submits that the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly found out from the police papers. He, therefore, submits that considering the aforesaid totality of the facts, this is a fit case, wherein, the Court may not have to exercise discretionary powers of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and role played by the applicant. I have also considered the reasoning given by the concerned court while rejecting the bail application and the affidavit filed by the IO opposing the said application.

7. It is the settled position of the law that, at this juncture detailed discussion of evidence and canvassing of the allegations contained in FIR as well as affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer or the merits of the case as well, is not necessary and should be avoided

8. It is found out from the record that this is the successive application seeking anticipatory bail. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons have hatched a conspiracy and committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. I have also considered the investigation papers produced during the course of hearing of this application. Having considered all the materials placed on record, in the opinion of this Court, prima facie, involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is found out. Moreover, the applicant is absconding and as per the case of the prosecution, custodial interrogation of the applicant is needed. It is also found out that charge-sheet qua other co-accused persons have been filed wherein applicant has been shown as an absconding accused. Thus, the conduct of the applicant is also required to be seen at the time of entertaining an application seeking anticipatory bail.

9. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the said decisions, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and this being discretionary relief, requires to be granted judiciously, the said decisions would be of no help to the present applicant at this juncture.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case, wherein the Court can exercise its discretionary powers in favour of the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

11. Needless to say that the aforesaid observations are confined to the decision of the present bail application only.