Biju M V S/O Shri Vijayan vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Biju M V, filed two anticipatory bail applications (ABA 129 of 2025 and ABA 138 of 2025). ABA 129 of 2025 was withdrawn. In ABA 138 of 2025, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to a complaint by the second respondent. The dispute involves approximately Rs. 1.53 Crores paid by the complainant to the petitioner between April 27, 2024, and May 31, 2024, allegedly for the purchase of land in Kerala. The complainant claims the petitioner acted as an agent. The petitioner contends the payments were against invoices for shooting an ad film for Tata Motors Ltd. in Kerala, and that the complainant's allegations are false. The complainant's advocate highlighted that the invoices lacked GST numbers, suggesting they were fictitious.

Held

The Court acknowledged that ABA 129 of 2025 was withdrawn. For ABA 138 of 2025, the Court noted the prima facie transaction amount of Rs. 1.53 Crores paid by the complainant to the applicant between April 27, 2024, and May 31, 2024. The complainant alleged these funds were for land purchase, with the applicant acting as an agent. The applicant countered that the payments were against invoices for an ad film shoot. The Court observed that the complainant's advocate pointed out the absence of GST numbers on the applicant's invoices, suggesting their fictitious nature. The Court directed both parties to cooperate with the investigation. The investigating officer was instructed to collect documentary evidence regarding the ad film shoot and payments, and to submit a detailed report by February 5, 2024. Pending the report, the applicant was granted interim protection from coercive steps and directed to attend the investigation between January 27-31, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the payments totaling Rs. 1.53 Crores made by the complainant to the applicant between April 27, 2024, and May 31, 2024, were for the purchase of land in Kerala as alleged by the complainant, or against invoices for shooting an ad film for Tata Motors Ltd. as claimed by the applicant? Contentions of the Complainant (Respondent No. 2): The amount was paid for land purchase, and the applicant acted as an agent. The invoices provided by the applicant for the ad film shooting lack GST numbers, which are mandatory for such transactions, rendering the invoices fictitious. Contentions of the Applicant (Petitioner): The payments were against invoices for shooting an ad film for Tata Motors Ltd. The applicant denies convincing the complainant to buy land in Kerala.