2024 (9) TMI 1016 - HC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions: Cooperation with Investigation & Protection of Depositors' Interests Mandated.

Ajitkumar Soni Versus State of Maharashtra

The Bombay HC granted anticipatory bail to the applicant involved in an FIR under IPC Sections 420, 477-A, 467, and 409, and the Maharashtra Protection of ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - offence u/s 420, 477-A, 467 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - allegation of receiving embezzled sum of money - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the investigation is almost complete, and the documents related to the crime consist of bank records. Additionally, there is no dispute that the applicant was involved in the trade of medical equipment and oxygen concentrators. Notably, one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is ready to deposit Rs.22,00,000/- in the trial Court to show his bona fides. Prima facie, there is material to suggest that the applicant received the money through legitimate business transactions, as tax invoices were issued, and GST payments were made to the GST department. Furthermore, the transactions were conducted exclusively through the Bank. This Court is inclined to allow the present application - In the event of the applicant's arrest in CR No.811 of 2021, registered at Akluj Police Station, Solapur and investigated by EOW, Solapur, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- in the trial Court within two weeks from today. The trial Court, however, shall not allow the withdrawal of this amount until the conclusion of the trial - Application allowed. Issues:- Application for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR under various sections of IPC and Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.- Allegation of receiving embezzled sum of money.- Applicant's involvement in business transactions related to medical equipment and Oxygen Concentrators.- Dispute regarding the applicant's role in the alleged offense.- Argument for and against granting anticipatory bail.- Consideration of evidence and legal provisions by the Court.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at Akluj Police Station, Solapur, under Sections 420, 477-A, 467, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. The applicant, represented by learned Counsel, denied any involvement in the offense committed by six Bank employees. It was argued that despite the FIR, the applicant had not been accused for a significant period, highlighting a lack of evidence linking the applicant to the alleged crime.The applicant's Counsel contended that the applicant's business transactions involving medical equipment and Oxygen Concentrators were legitimate and conducted through proper channels. The applicant had no direct dealings with the co-accused, and transactions were exclusively through the Bank. The Counsel emphasized that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the investigation and had already submitted explanations regarding the alleged transactions to the Economic Offences Wing.On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, alleging that the applicant had received an embezzled sum of money and that the offense was serious in nature, with the charge sheet pending. However, the Court considered various factors, including the nearing completion of the investigation, the involvement of bank records, and the willingness of the applicant to deposit the disputed amount to demonstrate good faith.After careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court ordered the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a PR Bond and sureties, subject to the condition of depositing the disputed amount within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Court imposed conditions to ensure the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and compliance with legal requirements, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of evidence and not influence witnesses.In conclusion, the judgment reflects a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the application for anticipatory bail, considering the evidence, arguments, and legal provisions to arrive at a decision that balances the interests of justice and the rights of the applicant.