Avinashkumar Rajendraprasad Singh vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that statements from the notary, bank manager, and another advocate indicated that the POA dated 30/12/2016 was not signed or notarized, and the bank was not in possession of original documents. The Court noted that the bank account opening forms clearly showed the addition of '(JV) Power Solutions Bhopal' after the complainant's company name, and that seals/stamps of both 'Power Solution' and 'Catskill Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Power Solutions (JV)' were used. Furthermore, a complaint was lodged in Bhopal regarding a false joint venture agreement, leading to the petitioners' arrest in that case. The Court found that the petitioners appeared to have adopted a modus operandi leading to the complaint in Bhopal, and the present FIR was a subsequent complaint, violating the condition of their prior bail. Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the petitioners had not disclosed the order of the MP High Court when seeking interim protection from this Court. The Court also noted a convenient change of stand by Accused-Avinash Singh regarding the notarization of the POA, indicating he had not approached the court with clean hands. The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the modus operandi and other involved parties, and that the petitioners did not deserve continued indulgence. The interim protection granted earlier was extended for four weeks.

Facts

The petitioners, Avinashkumar Singh and Abha Avinash Singh (husband and wife), are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR registered for offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and forgery. The FIR alleges that Avinash Singh, after gaining the complainant's confidence through successful contract execution, misused a Power of Attorney (POA) granted in 2017. He allegedly forged documents, including a board resolution and a pre-dated POA, to open a bank account in the name of the complainant's company with "JV Power Solutions" added. This led to alleged transfers of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- to private accounts of Abha Singh and her firm, Ambika Associates. The petitioners had previously secured interim protection from the High Court. The prosecution highlights a prior arrest in a similar case in Bhopal, where bail was granted with a condition that it would be cancelled if further complaints were filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust, particularly considering the alleged misuse of a Power of Attorney and the opening of a bank account using forged documents? 2. Whether the petitioners' conduct, including a prior arrest in a similar case in Bhopal and the alleged suppression of that fact from this Court, disentitles them to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR was filed belatedly and relied on communications suggesting the complainant was aware of the joint venture and its progress. They pointed to emails and letters indicating discussions about project progress and tax liabilities, and a communication asking for invoice summaries and a joint venture agreement. They also highlighted that the complainant's company was in Pune while the accused resided in Bhopal, making it inconvenient to manage business operations. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that statements from a notary, a bank manager, and another advocate indicated that crucial documents like the POA and board resolution were not signed or notarized as claimed. They emphasized that the bank account was opened in a joint venture name by adding "Power Solutions" and "Joint Venture" to the complainant's company name, and that the seals/stamps used were allegedly forged. The State also stressed the prior arrest in Bhopal for similar allegations and the conditional bail granted, which was violated by the filing of the present FIR.