Rahul Soni vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the contents of the FIR detailing the incident. The complainant was allegedly threatened and coerced into depositing her entire savings into one account, which was subsequently siphoned off into other accounts. The Court found the allegations to be serious and requiring thorough investigation. The Court specifically noted the role of the present petitioner in the alleged fraud. Given the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition for anticipatory bail was declined. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

Petitioner Rahul Soni filed a petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 114 dated 25.04.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, and 204 of the IPC at Police Station Cyber Crime, Gurugram. The FIR was based on a complaint by Shaalu Wadhwa, who alleged being a victim of a financial scam. She was contacted via an automated message from FEDEX, then transferred to individuals posing as CBI officers, who induced her to transfer a total of Rs. 21,32,546/- from her savings and PPF accounts. The petitioner claims he is falsely implicated and has been in the tax consultation business since 2017. He states no amount was received in his account and he is willing to join the investigation. The State opposed the bail, stating that co-accused have been joined in the investigation and a mobile phone used in the occurrence was recovered. The petitioner allegedly obtained a GST number for a firm, M/s Shree Krishna Marble and Granite, into which Rs. 10,32,546/- of the complainant's money was credited. This firm was allegedly obtained without proper verification. A co-accused, Aditya Vaishnav, named the petitioner. The firm M/s Shree Krishna Marble and Granite was found to belong to an accused named Sandeep, while another firm, M/s Acquaint Service for Ambition, belonged to Hanif, into whose account Rs. 11 lakhs of the complainant's money was credited. The State argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery and to identify other accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, considering the serious allegations of financial fraud and the need for custodial interrogation for recovery and identification of other accused. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he is falsely implicated in the case. He asserts that no amount has been credited to his personal account and he is prepared to cooperate with the investigation. He seeks anticipatory bail on these grounds. Respondents' arguments: The State opposes the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations involving a significant financial scam. They point to the recovery of a mobile phone used in the commission of the offense and the alleged involvement of the petitioner in obtaining a GST number for a firm into which a substantial portion of the complainant's money was transferred. The State emphasizes that co-accused have been arrested and interrogated, and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary to recover funds and identify further accomplices. They argue that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.