Nitin Jadhav Alias Nitin Dhansing Jadhav vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court. Serious and specific allegations were made against the petitioner, and the Court was satisfied that the petitioner had joined hands with his co-accused, Anand Kambale, to cheat the complainant. The police had found sufficient evidence indicating the use of the petitioner's email ID and GST number in the commission of the crime. Furthermore, OTPs were being sent to the petitioner's mobile phone, and he was actively involved in the crime. The Court noted that despite receiving a huge amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- with the assurance of making bookings, the bookings were not made, causing extreme hardship to the complainant. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the matter, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Jadhav, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0106 dated 28.07.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed by Priyanka Nanda, Managing Director of M/s GDV Global Private Limited, alleging cheating and fraud. The complainant company dealt with travel management for clients, including senior defense and civil service officers. The petitioner, along with Anand Kambale, allegedly approached the complainant to process bookings for hotels, sight-seeing, and transport for foreign trips. The complainant transferred Rs. 72,00,000/- to M/s Dew Holidays, owned by the petitioner and Anand Kambale. Subsequently, the bookings were dishonored, causing a loss of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the complainant, who had to re-book services at inflated costs. The petitioner claims his email ID and phone number were misused by Anand Kambale, and he had no direct dealings with the complainant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0106 dated 28.07.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, considering the allegations of cheating and fraud involving a sum of Rs. 72,00,000/-? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he is the proprietor of ANS Holidays, a registered MSME, and a regular taxpayer under GST. He claims his email ID and phone number were misused by co-accused Anand Kambale, who also executed an affidavit admitting a dispute with the complainant and stating the petitioner had no dealings with them. The petitioner asserts he never met or received money from the complainant and has filed a complaint against Anand Kambale for misusing his firm's credentials. He provided bank statements showing no receipt of funds and claims no involvement. Respondent's arguments (State and Complainant): The respondents argue that the petitioner's email ID, phone number, GST, and PAN were used in the transactions. They highlight that an OTP was received on the petitioner's registered mobile number, which was necessary to complete the transaction, indicating his full involvement from the beginning. They rely on the trial court's findings that the petitioner's email ID and registered mobile number were used for bookings, and OTPs were received on his phone, confirming his active participation in the alleged crime.