2020 (8) TMI 419 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - Misappropriation of amount - forgery of receipt of depositing the amount as service tax before complainant - alleged incident was committed during the period from 05.04.2016 to 28.11.2016 while the complainant lodged the report on 19.09.2017 - HELD THAT - The applicant who was working as Accountant in the complainant's firm Datt Enterprises, during the period from 05.04.2016 to 28.11.2016, in connivance with co-accused who was working as Manager withdraw the amount of ₹ 51,46,895/- from the account of firm Datt Enterprises by online transaction in the name of depositing service tax and also withdraw the amount of ₹ 18,09,303/- from the account of Datt Associates and out of that amount they deposited some amount in applicant accounts located at Axis Bank, Branch and some amount was invested in the movable and immovable properties. Thus applicant and co-accused misappropriated that amount. Looking to the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage - Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. based on allegations of fraud and forgery in connection with financial transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Fraud and Forgery:
The applicant filed a bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for offenses under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC related to financial misappropriation. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, an Accountant, and a co-accused Manager withdrew substantial amounts from the complainant's firm through online transactions, misappropriating funds and producing forged receipts. The defense contended that the applicant was falsely implicated, citing lack of direct evidence linking him to the fraud and forgery. They highlighted discrepancies in the complainant's allegations, emphasizing that the complainant had knowledge of the transactions and delayed filing the FIR, questioning the credibility of the accusations.

2. Defense Arguments and Prosecution's Opposition:
The defense argued that the applicant was not involved in the fraudulent activities and was willing to deposit a significant sum under protest. They emphasized the lack of evidence showing the applicant's receipt or use of the misappropriated funds. In contrast, the State opposed the bail plea, asserting that sufficient evidence tied the applicant to the offenses, warranting continued custody.

3. Objector's Opposition and Allegations:
The objector, representing the complainant, opposed the bail application, alleging that the applicant and co-accused misappropriated a substantial amount by transferring funds from the complainant's accounts to their personal accounts. They accused the applicant and co-accused of deceitfully depositing cheques meant for tax payments into the applicant's account, leading to financial losses for the complainant. The objector stressed the gravity of the offenses and the substantial amount involved, advocating against the applicant's release on bail.

4. Court's Decision and Reasoning:
After considering the arguments and case details, the Court rejected the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offenses and the substantial financial misappropriation involved. The Court found the allegations of fraud and forgery, coupled with the misuse of funds, to be significant factors justifying the denial of bail at that stage. The decision underscored the gravity of the offenses and the potential risks associated with releasing the applicant on bail amidst the ongoing legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment emphasized the importance of considering the nature and extent of financial crimes while determining bail applications, especially when substantial misappropriation and fraudulent activities are alleged. The decision reflected a cautious approach in balancing the interests of justice and the protection of financial integrity in such cases.