2025 (7) TMI 469 - HC - GST

Receptionist granted anticipatory bail in extortion GST case after court finds FIR filed with ulterior motive

Poonam Kumari Versus State Of Haryana

HC granted anticipatory bail to petitioner, a receptionist, in extortion and GST evasion case. Court found FIR lodged with ulterior motive arising from ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - extortion of money - evasion of GST - applicant is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to join the same as and when required - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the FIR appears to be lodged with an ulterior motive, arising out of a personal dispute and internal conflict within the company. The petitioner, is working as a receptionist only was assigned the job of engaging the visitors making them to meet the owner of the company, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal. The circumstances leading to the present FIR indicate that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the petitioner’s resistance and objection to such illegal and unethical conduct, including an attempt to coerce her into a sexual relationship and threats issued thereafter. Further, the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence(s) and there is no recovery to be made from her, hence this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment, once the petitioner has given an undertaking in 12 of the petitioner that she is ready and willing to join the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction - bail application allowed - petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under the relevant provisions of BNSS, 2023, in the context of the FIR lodged against her.Whether the petitioner has any substantive connection with the alleged offences under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 61 and Sections 3(4), 318(2), 61(2) of BNSS, 2023.Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary or justified given the facts and circumstances of the case.Whether the FIR appears to be motivated by ulterior considerations, particularly arising from internal company disputes and personal conflicts.What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the petitioner while granting anticipatory bail, consistent with Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Grant of anticipatory bail under BNSS, 2023Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, which empowers it to grant anticipatory bail and impose conditions to ensure the investigation proceeds without obstruction. The Court referred to the conditions enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, which are designed to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It noted that the petitioner was employed as a receptionist with limited duties and no direct involvement in the alleged criminal acts. The Court observed that the FIR appeared to be lodged with an ulterior motive, possibly as a counterblast arising from the petitioner's resistance to unethical demands by the company owner.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's testimony and the circumstances of her appointment on 05.03.2024, along with the absence of any incriminating material linking her to the offences, were pivotal. The Court noted the petitioner's allegations of coercion and threats by the company owner, which contextualized the dispute and cast doubt on the FIR's bona fides.Application of law to facts: Given the petitioner's limited role and lack of involvement, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The petitioner's willingness to cooperate and join the investigation further supported the grant of anticipatory bail.Treatment of competing arguments: The State and complainant argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, cheated the complainant. However, the Court found no incriminating evidence against the petitioner specifically, and hence rejected the contention that custodial interrogation was warranted.Conclusions: The Court held that anticipatory bail was appropriate, subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.Issue 2: Examination of the FIR's motive and petitioner's involvementRelevant legal framework and precedents: Courts have consistently held that the motive behind lodging an FIR is relevant in assessing the necessity of custodial interrogation and bail. The Court considered the principle that FIRs motivated by personal vendettas or internal disputes require careful scrutiny.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court discerned that the FIR was likely a retaliatory measure following the petitioner's refusal to comply with unethical demands and her resistance to coercion. The internal company dispute, including alleged GST evasion and threats by the owner, formed the backdrop of the FIR.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's role as receptionist, the timeline of events, and the absence of any recovery or direct involvement in the alleged offences were significant. The Court highlighted the petitioner's claims of attempts to coerce her into a sexual relationship and threats issued upon refusal.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that when an FIR is lodged with an ulterior motive, custodial interrogation of a peripheral accused is unwarranted. The petitioner's limited role and the nature of allegations negated the need for custody.Treatment of competing arguments: While the State maintained the petitioner's complicity, the Court found the evidence insufficient and the FIR's motive questionable, thus favoring the petitioner's position.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the FIR was motivated by personal and internal company disputes, and the petitioner's involvement was minimal or non-existent.Issue 3: Conditions to be imposed on anticipatory bailRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 permits the Court to impose conditions on bail to ensure the accused's availability for interrogation, prevent interference with witnesses or evidence, and restrict travel without permission.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court mandated that the petitioner shall join the investigation within one week and furnish personal or surety bonds. The Court emphasized adherence to conditions including availability for interrogation, refraining from inducement or threats to witnesses, and not leaving India without prior permission.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's undertaking to cooperate and the absence of any recovery from her justified these conditions rather than custodial detention.Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the petitioner's right to liberty with the need to ensure a smooth investigation by imposing appropriate bail conditions.Treatment of competing arguments: No specific objections were raised against the conditions, and the Court's approach reflected standard bail practice under BNSS, 2023.Conclusions: The Court imposed conditions consistent with Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, making the bail conditional on cooperation and compliance.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that:'The FIR appears to be lodged with an ulterior motive, arising out of a personal dispute and internal conflict within the company.''The petitioner has no role in the alleged offence(s) and there is no recovery to be made from her, hence this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment.''The petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to her joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction.''The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which include making herself available for interrogation, refraining from inducement or threats to persons acquainted with the facts, and not leaving India without prior permission.'Core principles established include the necessity of scrutinizing the motive behind FIRs, especially when lodged in the context of internal disputes; the limited role of custodial interrogation where the accused's involvement is minimal; and the imposition of reasonable bail conditions to balance liberty and investigation integrity.Final determinations were that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner with conditions, and that failure to comply with the direction to join investigation within one week would result in automatic cancellation of the bail order.