Ajitkumar Soni vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court noted that the investigation was almost complete and the documents primarily consisted of bank records. It was not disputed that the applicant was involved in the trade of medical equipment and oxygen concentrators. The Court acknowledged that one co-accused had already been granted bail and that the applicant was ready to deposit Rs.22,00,000/- in the trial court to demonstrate his bona fides. Prima facie, the Court found material suggesting the applicant received the money through legitimate business transactions, supported by tax invoices and GST payments, with transactions conducted exclusively through the bank. The Court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, subject to depositing Rs.22,00,000/- in the trial court, which would not be allowed for withdrawal until the conclusion of the trial. The applicant was also directed not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to cooperate with the investigation.

Facts

The applicant, Ajitkumar Soni, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR CR No.811 of 2021 registered at Akluj Police Station, Solapur, under Sections 420, 477-A, 467, 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Solapur, is investigating. The applicant claims he was not involved in the offence committed by bank employees and was made a scapegoat. He stated that he supplied oxygen concentrators to a co-accused, Muniraj Naidu, who used the name of another co-accused, Nitin Ughade. The applicant asserted that his business transactions were legal, tax invoices were issued, and GST was paid. He was prepared to deposit Rs.22,00,000/- to show his bona fides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of receiving an embezzled sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and the serious nature of the offence under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant played no role in the offence committed by bank employees and has not been made an accused for approximately 26 months. - The applicant was involved in legitimate business transactions of medical equipment and oxygen concentrators during the COVID period, issuing tax invoices and paying GST. - The amount received was related to these legitimate business transactions, as corroborated by the investigating officer's statement. - Other individuals who deposited amounts in the applicant's account were not made accused. - The applicant is willing to deposit Rs.22,00,000/- and cooperate with the investigation. - One co-accused has already been granted bail, and the investigation is nearing completion. Respondent's Arguments: - The applicant received an embezzled sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. - The offence is of a serious nature, and the charge sheet has not yet been filed. - The bail application of co-accused Nitin Ughade was denied.