2024 (12) TMI 657 - HC - GST

HC upholds anticipatory bail for accused in Rs 7 crore misappropriation case involving Sections 406 and 420 IPC

M/s. Matrix Engineering And Services, Versus The State Of Karnataka, Naqeeb Najeeb Mulla, Belagavi.

Karnataka HC rejected petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to two accused in economic offenses involving misappropriation of over ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Allegations of economic offenses against accused Nos. 1 and 2 - misuse of credentials leading to misappropriation of funds - HELD THAT:- The petitioner who is the complainant is seeking cancellation of the bail mainly on the ground that the allegations made against accused Nos. 1 and 2 are very grave. They are guilty of misappropriation of more that Rs.7 crores and the said amount is utilized by the accused persons to purchase properties in the names of their family members and relatives - It is true that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have misused the credentials of complainant and others and withdrawn various sums from their accounts and instead of paying the same towards the dues of Income Tax, GST and other statutory authorities, have misappropriated the same. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. In the present case, the charges levelled against the accused cannot be categorized as heinous offences, even through the stakes involved are very heavy. Already with the arrest of accused No. 1 in O.R. No. 17/2024-25, the concerned authorities have investigated the matter. Even where the accused indulged in tampering with the records online, it could be ascertained and it would be to their peril. By so doing they would be again involve themselves in further offences. Despite the fact that the accused persons are guilty of siphoning of money from the account of the complainant and other clients, the present complaint is for taking criminal action against accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is not a recovery proceeding. When the trial court is convinced that the presence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 could be secured by imposing stringent conditions and granted bail, this court is of the considered opinion that there are no justifiable grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to them. Both the petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 439 (2) r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are rejected. Issues:1. Petitioner seeking to quash anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2.2. Allegations of economic offenses against accused Nos. 1 and 2.3. Misuse of credentials leading to misappropriation of funds.4. Grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail.5. Legal considerations for granting anticipatory bail.Analysis:The judgment involves two petitions arising from a criminal case where the petitioner is the complainant and the respondents are accused Nos. 1 and 2. The petitions seek to quash anticipatory bail granted to the accused. The accused, a father and son duo, are tax consultants accused of issuing fake invoices, misappropriating funds, and acquiring assets through fraudulent means.The complainant had entrusted financial matters to the accused, who allegedly misused the credentials to siphon funds, evade tax obligations, and manipulate records. The accused were charged with offenses under IPC and the Information Technology Act. The complainant filed complaints leading to the registration of a criminal case against the accused.The main contention of the petitioner was the gravity of the economic offenses committed by the accused, amounting to misappropriation of significant sums. The petitioner argued that the accused posed a threat of tampering with evidence and absconding, warranting cancellation of anticipatory bail.The court considered the severity of the charges against the accused, the potential for witness tampering, and the need for recovery. Despite the serious nature of the offenses, the court noted that the accused had already been investigated and arrested in a related matter. Stringent conditions were imposed, including surrendering passports, to ensure their presence during trial.Ultimately, the court found no justifiable grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused. The petitions filed by the petitioner were rejected, upholding the decision to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2.