Rahul S/O Giriraj Sharma vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicant and co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, deceived the complainant into paying Rs. 6,84,930/- under the false promise of securing government tenders. The material on record indicated that a portion of this amount was deposited into the applicant's account, and the applicant used his mobile phone to induce these payments. The Court noted that both the mobile phone and the amount in question had not yet been recovered. Furthermore, the record showed that the applicant provided the complainant with fraudulent GST numbers. Given that the investigation was at a nascent stage and considering these circumstances, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Rahul S/o. Giriraj Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 66 of 2023 registered at Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 419, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, representing A-one Traders, offered government tenders to the complainant for a profit, requesting payments outside official channels. After initial refusal, the complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- online. Subsequently, the applicant introduced the complainant to a colleague, Jaywala, who then introduced another executive, Pravin. Pravin demanded further payments for government fees and an NISC certificate, promising a tender worth Rs. 3,70,00,000/- and a refund guarantee. The complainant transferred a total of Rs. 6,84,930/- but did not receive the tender or payment. The applicant claimed false implication, stating he was an employee following instructions and had no criminal intent. He also claimed a company account was opened in his name without his involvement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of cheating and fraud under Sections 419 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offence, with the accusations being baseless. He highlighted a delay in filing the FIR and asserted that he was merely an employee performing his job duties in a telemarketing role, without any criminal intent. He stated that the Rs. 20,000/- was transferred to the company account, he subsequently left his job, and he has no criminal antecedents. He also claimed a company account was opened in his name without his involvement. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant and co-accused, in furtherance of common intention, defrauded the complainant of Rs. 6,84,930/-. A portion of this amount was deposited into the applicant's bank account, and the mobile phone used in the crime is yet to be recovered. The investigation was stated to be at a nascent stage.