Bar on Section 438 CrPC under GPID Act applies to Designated Courts, not High Courts.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding an FIR dated January 15, 2026, alleging investment fraud

The complainant alleged that between 2019 and 2024, the applicant and co-accused induced various relatives to invest approximately Rs. 6.90 Crores in stone crusher firms with a promised 12% annual return

While the applicant was not named in the initial FIR, subsequent investigation and statements from 31 victims revealed his role in collecting cash and siphoning funds

Evidence from a recovered laptop indicated the applicant personally benefited from approximately Rs. 95.47 Lakhs sourced from the firm 'Megh Enterprise'

1. Whether the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court given the bar under the GPID Act

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of the economic offence and the material collected during investigation

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the BNSS regarding anticipatory bail

It relied on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., which establishes that a prima facie case must be considered first and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not an absolute ground for bail

The court also followed Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, outlining factors like the gravity of the offence and impact on society

Furthermore, it interpreted Section 17 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (GPID) Act, which bars Designated (Sessions) Courts from exercising powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail), thereby permitting direct approach to the High Court

The court first addressed maintainability, noting that since Section 17(2) of the GPID Act expressly excludes the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 BNSS) for Designated Courts, the applicant was permitted to approach the High Court directly

On the merits, the court noted that although the applicant was not named in the FIR, investigation revealed his active participation in a "calculated" socio-economic fraud

The court found that approximately 112 victims were duped and evidence suggested the applicant used diverted funds to purchase property in his and his wife's name

Applying the Sumitha Pradeep ratio, the court determined that the gravity of the economic offence and the clear prima facie involvement outweighed the applicant's arguments regarding the civil nature of the dispute or the delay in filing the FIR

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected, and the Rule was discharged