TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies anticipatory bail in economic offenses citing public interest, custodial interrogation.</h1> <h3>Mr. Jithender Kumar Agarwal Versus The State of Telangana</h3> Mr. Jithender Kumar Agarwal Versus The State of Telangana - TMI Issues Involved:1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).2. Allegations of fraud, forgery, and falsification of accounts.3. Impact on the economy and public interest.4. Legal principles governing anticipatory bail.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.263 of 2016, fearing arrest for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A), 201, 212, 109, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. The court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where false implication or frivolous accusations are apparent.2. Allegations of Fraud, Forgery, and Falsification of Accounts:The petitioners were accused of depositing large sums of demonetized currency by fabricating documents and creating fake customers. The investigation revealed that the companies involved had deposited Rs.57.85 crores and Rs.40 crores in various banks by allegedly receiving cash advances from 5200 customers within a short span, which was found to be implausible. The statements of employees and the lack of CCTV footage further supported the allegations of forgery and falsification of accounts. The court found prima facie material indicating offences under Sections 468, 471, 477(A), 109, and 120-B I.P.C.3. Impact on Economy and Public Interest:The court emphasized the seriousness of the offences, noting that the alleged actions had significant implications for the state economy and public interest. The fraudulent conversion of black money into white through forged documents was seen as a deliberate attempt to evade taxes and undermine the demonetization policy. The court highlighted the importance of custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy and prevent tampering with evidence.4. Legal Principles Governing Anticipatory Bail:The court referred to several precedents, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which outline the principles for granting anticipatory bail. Factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and the impact on public interest were considered. The court concluded that the petitioners' actions warranted custodial interrogation and that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, citing the prima facie evidence of serious economic offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the potential impact on the state economy and public interest. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving such serious allegations and potential harm to the public interest. Consequently, all related miscellaneous applications were also dismissed.
TaxTMI 