Vipul Rasiklal Hakani vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that while initial representations were made by a co-accused, the investigation progressively revealed the applicant's prima facie involvement. The Court noted material evidence, including alleged forgery of a GST bill and cheques to withdraw funds from the account of a deceased person, and the applicant's role in hiring the godown, instructing deliveries, and selling the commodities to subsequent purchasers. The Court found that the applicant was instrumental in allegedly hiring the godown and instructing drivers for deliveries. Given the nature of the accusations and the emerging investigation material, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the applicant was indispensable for a complete and effective investigation, particularly concerning the alleged forgery of documents for cheating. Consequently, the Court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Vipul Rasiklal Hakani, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The first informant, a commission agent, alleged that accused No. 1, Jignesh @ Jay @ Jagga Shah, procured grains and pulses worth Rs. 42,31,500/- by making false representations. After delivery, accused No. 1 became evasive and switched off his phone. During the investigation, the applicant was identified as a co-conspirator. The applicant's prior application for pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, leading to the present application before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 34 of 2023 registered for offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering the material on record. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the entire defrauded amount was credited to the account of accused No. 1 and no part was paid to the applicant, asserting a lack of material connecting the applicant to the crime. Respondent's Arguments: The State contended that the applicant forged documents to show a false GST number and allegedly forged the signature of a deceased individual to operate a bank account where the proceeds of the sale of grains were credited, necessitating custodial interrogation for a complete investigation.