Vikram S/O Omprakash Shrivastav vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicants, Vikram Shrivastav and Darshan Bharat Kumar Chudgar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Jitnarayan Pradhan, owner of Crystal Technologies System Pvt. Ltd., which supplies IT hardware and software. Pradhan alleged that Vikram Shrivastav approached him for business on behalf of Padmavati Enterprises, presenting documents including GST returns and PAN/Aadhar cards of Darshan Chudgar. Crystal Technologies supplied goods worth Rs. 1,54,38,958/- to Padmavati Enterprises, of which only Rs. 36,77,213/- was paid. The remaining amount was covered by two cheques that dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The informant discovered that the office address provided by the accused was occupied by a different company, Boomrang Developers & Pvt. Ltd. The informant's loss was Rs. 1,17,61,744.88.

Held

The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR, supported by the statement of the informant's employee, indicated a well-thought-out plan to induce the informant's company to part with goods worth over Rs. 1.54 Crores, with only a fraction paid. The Court noted the applicants' failure to demonstrate bonafides by not making the promised payments after the interim order. The Court observed that Vikram Shrivastav initially induced the complainant, and Darshan Chudgar, the owner of the company, issued the dishonoured cheques. The subsequent discovery of the office being occupied by a different company and the shifting of their office without notice further supported the criminal intent. Therefore, custodial interrogation was deemed necessary, and the offences were considered serious. The applications were rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of cheating and criminal misappropriation? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant Vikram Shrivastav argued that he was not the owner of Padmavati Enterprises and therefore not responsible, and that since the dishonoured cheques were issued by Darshan Chudgar, Vikram should be protected. The applicant Darshan Chudgar argued that Vikram Shrivastav entered into the transaction, and he had no concern with it, seeking protection. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and the informant opposed the applications, submitting that it was a well-planned scheme to obtain goods worth a huge amount and deliberately misappropriate the funds. They highlighted that the applicants had failed to pay the dues as promised, despite an interim order granting ad-interim anticipatory bail on the condition of payment. The FIR clearly details how the informant was induced to supply goods, and the roles of both applicants were separately spelt out. The shifting of the office without informing the informant indicated criminal intent.