Nitin Jayprakash Bakal vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the allegations of cash payments were not bald or vague, as the first informant provided specific particulars regarding dates and claimed to have obtained acknowledgments in his diary. The Court found prima facie material indicating a huge amount was paid to the applicant, which he could not lawfully account for. The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed insignificant given the trust reposed in a tax consultant and the informant's prolonged pursuit of the matter, even requiring intervention from superior police officers for the FIR registration. The Court noted that the applicant did not claim the amount was deposited with the GST Department and receipts were obtained. Consequently, without custodial interrogation, a fair and effective investigation to ascertain the money trail and identify other involved persons would be impossible. The applicant was found to have abused the trust placed in him, exhibiting a strong element of criminality beyond professional misconduct. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicant, a Tax Consultant, is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant, a dealer in electrical goods, alleges that the applicant, whom he had engaged for professional services for ten years, collected substantial amounts of money in cash, purportedly for tax and penalty payments. The informant claims to have paid Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash initially, and later Rs. 1,96,77,000/- in cash, aggregating to Rs. 2,21,99,789/-. However, the applicant allegedly provided challans and receipts for only Rs. 25,22,789/-. When confronted, the applicant denied collecting the seized account books. The FIR was lodged after a considerable delay, with the informant alleging the applicant's evasion in providing documentation for the balance payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of the applicant inducing the first informant to part with a huge amount in cash, and subsequently failing to account for it lawfully, warrant custodial interrogation, thereby disentitling the applicant to anticipatory bail under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the matter was closed by the GST Department in 2000, and there was an inordinate delay in lodging the report. It was contended that the first informant had sought the return of account books without making any allegations against the applicant in a letter dated December 31, 2020. Regarding the cash payments, it was submitted that even if the allegations were taken at face value, custodial interrogation was not warranted as the applicant was ready to cooperate with the investigation and was not the ultimate beneficiary. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the allegations of inducing the first informant to part with a huge amount in cash were specific and supported by material indicating the applicant received the cash. The applicant's inability to provide receipts for the cash amount, unlike for the cheque payments, was highlighted as evidence of dishonest intention, necessitating custodial interrogation.