Mukesh Agarwal vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court considered the arguments from both sides and perused the case diary and materials collected by the CBI. It noted that the prime accused had recently been arrested and that the petitioner was his main financial advisor. The Court found incriminating materials in the case diary regarding the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime. Consequently, the Court held that it was not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, despite his custody since September 21, 2024. The Court did not explicitly decide on the applicability of specific sections of the BNS or the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, but rather focused on the incriminating evidence found during the investigation, which warranted continued custody for further inquiry.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Agarwal, a Chartered Accountant, seeks bail in a case involving a financial scam by "DB Stock Consultancy." The complainant alleged that the consultancy, owned by Deepankar Barman, collected crores of rupees from investors promising high returns, but Barman absconded with the funds. The petitioner's firm, "DBA and Company," provided consultancy services, including filing GST and Income Tax returns, to "DB Stock Consultancy." The petitioner claims he only performed professional duties, filing returns based on information provided by the client, and received a nominal payment. He was arrested on September 21, 2024, and has been in custody since. The investigation was initially with the State Police and later transferred to the CBI.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant providing professional services, is liable under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, for his role in managing the books of accounts of "DB Stock Consultancy" which allegedly ran an illegal deposit scheme. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that as a licensed professional, his act of rendering professional services does not constitute a criminal offense. He argues that Sections 316(5) and 318(4) BNS, 2023, are not applicable as the FIR does not disclose ingredients of these sections against him. He also claims he was not served with a mandatory notice under Section 41A CrPC/35(3) BNSS, 2023, despite cooperating. He relies on various Supreme Court judgments regarding bail for professionals and the principles of granting bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The CBI argues that the petitioner, as the prime accused's financial advisor, helped run the illegal deposit scheme by managing the books of accounts of "DB Stock Consultancy" and "DB Stock Broking." They claim the petitioner adjusted deposit amounts by creating false consultancy invoices showing them as loans and received substantial payments in cash and through banking channels. The investigation is in its nascent stage, and the petitioner is required for further investigation to unearth the conspiracy involving economic offenses of several crores.