Rajiv Bajaj vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Rajiv Bajaj, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The FIR was lodged by Manik Bajaj, alleging that the petitioner, a cousin and business partner, defrauded him after the death of Manik's father, Raman Bajaj. The dispute involved three family businesses: M/s Des Raj Hasbans Lal, M/s Bajaj Brothers, and M/s Bajaj Impex. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, as the sole authorized signatory, unlawfully withdrew approximately Rs. 47,00,000/- from two firms and illegally sold business machines, usurping Rs. 20,55,000/- from one sale and an unspecified amount from another. An inquiry suggested fraud of approximately Rs. three crore. The petitioner countered that the complainant attempted to usurp the business after his father's death and had frozen bank accounts.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. It noted that the dispute arose after the death of the complainant's father on August 5, 2024, and there was no material or allegation of dispute or breach of trust by the petitioner during the father's lifetime. The Court acknowledged that at this stage, it could not determine who was telling the truth. However, it observed that the partnership deeds contained clauses for arbitration (Clauses 14 and 17 of the deed dated June 11, 2013) for resolving disputes, and arbitration applications were pending before the Court. The Court found no substantial reason to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation, considering he was not an habitual or hardened criminal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court emphasized that arrest should not be made routinely and must be justified by necessity. Therefore, custodial interrogation was not warranted, and the petitioner deserved anticipatory bail. The Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and be released on bail upon furnishing bonds, subject to conditions including handing over his passport and seeking court permission before leaving the country. The Court explicitly stated that its discussion should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023, given the allegations of fraud and financial impropriety in family businesses? The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially a civil one arising from partnership disagreements after the death of a partner, Raman Bajaj. He contended that the complainant was attempting to usurp the entire family business and had frozen bank accounts. The petitioner relied on his LinkedIn profile and tax invoices to show his continued involvement in business operations and the complainant's absence. He also pointed to GST passwords being with the complainant and GST returns being filed based on OTPs received on the deceased father's mobile. The respondent (State of Punjab) argued that the petitioner committed fraud by unlawful withdrawals and illegal sale of machines, causing loss to the joint business and making the complainant suffer. They prayed for the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.