Kuldeep Saxena vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the materials collected by the investigating authority suggested that the petitioner and his associate had created fraudulent documents, including a forged work order totaling Rs. 6.87 Crore. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was instrumental in the commission of the offense and had projected influence over the Matak Autonomous Council. It was also noted that over Rs. 1.87 Crore was accumulated in the petitioner's and his wife's bank accounts under the guise of process fees and "cut money." Considering the early stage of the investigation and the evidence gathered, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The operative direction was the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Kuldeep Saxena, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Chimpu Police Station Case No. 36/2024, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the petitioner facilitated a work order for Solar Street Lights under the Matak Autonomous Council by introducing the informant to Partha Bharadwaj, purportedly the Managing Director. The petitioner and Mrinal Kr. Saikia allegedly issued a letter of award and requested an MOU. The informant later discovered these documents were fake, and Partha Bharadwaj was not the Managing Director. The petitioner claimed to be a service provider who prepared tender documents for a fee, paid GST, and had no nexus with the other accused. He had interim protection from the Sessions Judge but was denied bail alleging non-cooperation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the Matak Autonomous Council. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he acted as a service provider, preparing documents for a fee and paying GST, and therefore was not involved in any offense. He argued that the FIR did not establish any nexus between him and the other accused, Partha Bharadwaj and Mrinal Kr. Saikia. He also submitted that he had cooperated with the investigation and that his interim protection should be continued. Revenue's arguments: The State of Arunachal Pradesh, through the Additional PP, argued that the petitioner was the "kingpin" and a co-conspirator. They asserted that the petitioner introduced the informant to the other accused and that his custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation. They relied on materials collected by the investigating authority to support their claim of the petitioner's involvement.