2017 (1) TMI 1804 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - forgery - alleged that the Directors have committed fraud adopting illegal practices for exchange of old high value denomination notes of Rs.500/- Rs.1,000/- after demonetisation by the Government of India - HELD THAT - In the present case on hand, the petitioners filed petition and obtained interim order from the Court not to arrest them. This Court directed them to appear before the Investigating Agency, fixing specific date and time, but the Government Pleader for Home before the Court complained that they are not cooperating to complete the investigation. Thereby, the petition was disposed of with a specific direction to follow the procedure under Section 41-A. Even in the present petition, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait when the matter was heard, granted interim anticipatory bail for the time being. But, during hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor complained that the petitioners are not cooperating for completion of investigation - the Court has to strike balance between the fundamental right and individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and societal interest and such discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where the Court satisfied that the petitioners did commit no offence prima facie and that there is no possibility of interfering with the further investigation or fleeing from justice, so also the seriousness of the crime. In the present facts, the petitioners committed a serious offences, the total amount involved in the crime is more than Rs.110 crores by allegedly forging the signatures of 5200 customers within a span of 3 hours, that too during night time. I am unable to comprehend such situation where 5200 customers transacted business worth more than Rs.110 crores during night time within a span of 3 hours. It is highly improbable in ordinary course of events and even obtaining signatures of 5200 customers on vouchers and receipts, may take days together, but the petitioners by their ability allegedly obtained signatures 5200 customers and transacted business more than Rs.110 crores and that too paid advance for purchase of bullion in future. Whether the petitioners delivered gold to the customers in pursuance of alleged receipt of cash is to be enquired into, atleast to accept their contention. In the present case also, the observations made in STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS SHRI MOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL AND ANOTHER 1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT case would apply directly for the reason that the demonetization of a high valued currency notes of Rs.500/- Rs.1000/- was announced at 8 00 PM on 08.11.2016. But, within half an hour, the petitioners started creating various documents and completed creation of 5200 documents as if they transacted business within 3 hours. It is impossible in regular course of business to count such huge cash of Rs.110 crores either manually or by machines, besides preparing receipts and vouchers and obtaining the signatures of various customers who are 5200 in number. When custodial interrogation is required, granting pre-arrest bail would have its own impact on the said interrogation, as the petitioners would be guarded with an order of bail and such grant of anticipatory bail would impede the very purpose of custodial interrogation and the said interrogation would remain as a mere ritual and it would be difficult for the Investigating Agency to unearth the said serious fraud against the State and it would directly effect the society at large. It is difficult to exercise my discretion to grant pre-arrest bail for the following reasons 1. There is prima facie material against the petitioners to conclude that they committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 477(A), 109, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. 2. The entire transactions are based on the receipts and vouchers issued to various customers who are 5200 in number and those vouchers or bills are computer generated and in case, the petitioners are protected from pre-arrest by granting anticipatory bail, it would be difficult to find out the details of those customers, so as to find truth in the transactions, since there is a possibility of influencing those witnesses and tampering the evidence. There are no ground to enlarge the petitioners granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the Criminal Petition in the event of their arrest in relation to Crime of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A), 201, 212, 109, 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C and consequently, all the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

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.