Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 23 dated 26.01.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh. The FIR alleged that the petitioner's firm duped the complainant of Rs. 34 lakhs. Initially, on 03.09.2024, the Court granted interim bail, noting the petitioner's submission that the firm was not in his name, only Rs. 33,000/- cash was handed to him, and no bank transactions linked him to the crime. The petitioner complied by joining the investigation. The State counsel confirmed the petitioner joined investigation but sought recovery of approximately Rs. 33 lacs and pointed to a similar complaint in Rewari District. The complainant's counsel presented a GST registration document showing the firm, 'AASTHA JEWELLERS MULTITRADE CO.', was in the petitioner's name.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim order absolute. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's emphasis that bail applications must be assessed independently, without being swayed by the complainant's or prosecution's arguments, especially concerning the recovery of alleged amounts. The Court's role in considering bail is to satisfy the legal criteria for granting bail, not to act as an agent for recovering dues. While the petitioner's counsel presented evidence (Annexures P-4, P-5, P-6) suggesting the petitioner had supplied goods worth approximately Rs. 11 lacs, and the complainant's counsel presented a GST registration in the petitioner's name, the Court ultimately focused on the principle that bail is not for recovery. The Court found that the legal criteria for granting bail were met, and the interim order was made absolute subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023. The issue of the exact amount due or the veracity of the GST registration was not definitively decided as the primary focus was on the bail criteria.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of cheating and misappropriation? 2. Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in the firm, 'AASTHA JEWELLERS MULTITRADE CO.', as reflected in the GST registration, negates his claim for anticipatory bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the firm was not in his name, only a small cash amount was given to him, and there were no bank transactions linking him to the alleged crime. He further argued, by referring to Annexures P-4, P-5, and P-6, particularly Annexure P-4 (an invoice in his wife's name), that he had supplied gold biscuits worth approximately Rs. 11 lacs, indicating no intention to cheat or misappropriate funds for gold purchase. Respondent's (State and Complainant) arguments: The State counsel argued for the recovery of approximately Rs. 33 lacs and highlighted a similar complaint against the petitioner. The complainant's counsel countered the petitioner's claim about the firm's name by presenting a GST registration document showing the firm, 'AASTHA JEWELLERS MULTITRADE CO.', was registered in the petitioner's name.