Manish Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner did not qualify for the extraordinary discretion of anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the investigation was at its threshold and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. The Court found that the complicity of the petitioner had been prima facie established. The reasoning was based on the fact that investors had invested their hard-earned money based on assurances of safety and returns, but subsequently, the Society refused to pay maturity amounts. The petitioner, as the Branch Manager, was alleged to have allured investors to deposit money with the Society, promising higher rates of interest than those fixed by the Government of India. The Court considered the gravity of the offence, the chances of the accused tampering with evidence, and the probability of him fleeing from justice, as per Supreme Court precedents. The Court concluded that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was very much required to unearth the mystery behind the entire scam.

Facts

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 70 dated March 18, 2025, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 408, 420 of the IPC, 1860, and Sections 21 & 23 of the BUDS Act, 2013, at Police Station Sadar Panipat. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that the Human Welfare Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (the "Society"), which had permission to operate in Haryana, defrauded investors. Investors deposited money in RD, FD, and DD schemes, assured of returns. However, the Society's branches began closing, and investors lost their money. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, as the Branch Manager of the Dadlana branch, assured him of returns on a deposit of Rs. 2,50,165/- which were not paid. The petitioner contended he was merely an employee performing duties under Head Office policies and not a beneficiary or misappropriator. He approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, for anticipatory bail, which was declined.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of fraud and misappropriation against the Society and his role as Branch Manager? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was only an employee of the Society, working as a Branch Manager, and was merely performing his duties as per the instructions and policies of the Head Office. He contended that he was neither a beneficiary nor had misappropriated any funds, and that he himself had fallen victim to the fraud perpetrated by the Society's officers and Directors. He submitted that the case hinges on documentary and bank transaction records, and since no prima facie case for custodial interrogation was made out against him, he deserved anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and complainant argued that the petitioner, in conspiracy with his accomplices, had enticed investors to deposit their money with the Society by promising lucrative returns. They contended that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy in duping innocent investors and therefore did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The State highlighted that the Society had collected crores of rupees in Panipat district alone and had failed to pay maturity amounts, leading to numerous complaints. They also pointed out that the Society was not registered to operate in Haryana and that the petitioner was involved in another FIR.