Sandhya Brijkishor Vishwakarma vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Sandhya Brijkishor Vishwakarma, sought anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 43 of 2024 registered at Vakola Police Station for offences including cheating and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution alleges that the informant was defrauded of Rs. 50,00,000/- in a mobile phone business transaction with Accused No. 1, Ashfak Ali Shaikh. The informant paid a total of Rs. 54,07,534/- for I-phones, of which Rs. 4,00,000/- was returned, leaving a balance of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The applicant was employed as a cashier by Accused No. 1. The applicant's counsel argued that she was merely an employee and not responsible for her employer's decisions, and that amounts paid into her account were for GST. Four other accused, including Accused No. 1, had already been granted bail.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It noted that the FIR did not attribute any specific role to the applicant in the alleged cheating or the non-delivery of goods. The Court observed that the informant had paid money to Accused No. 1, who was the employer of the applicant, and it was not alleged that the informant had paid money directly to the applicant. The primary allegation against Accused No. 1 was that he had lost the money in gambling. Considering that four out of five accused had already been released on bail and the applicant is a lady, the Court found no purpose would be served by arresting her and then granting bail. Therefore, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail on executing a PR bond and providing sureties, with conditions to attend the police station periodically, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, as a cashier, has a specific role in the alleged cheating and criminal conspiracy, warranting anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel contended that the applicant was a mere cashier and not involved in the decision-making process of Accused No. 1. They argued that any amounts transferred to her account were for GST payments and that she had no direct role in the alleged fraud. Furthermore, they highlighted that four other accused, including the primary accused, had been granted bail, suggesting a pattern of leniency. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned APP submitted that while the applicant had no criminal antecedents, she was a beneficiary as the money paid by the informant to Accused No. 1 was periodically transferred to the applicant's account. They argued that this indicated her involvement in the scheme.