Mitali Sachin Adhikari vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient incriminating materials against other accused persons, who were the de facto promoters and financial controllers, the Court found the materials insufficient to indicate the present applicant's involvement in the entire conspiracy. The primary allegation against the petitioner was that she was a beneficiary of fund transfers, but the amounts received by her (Rs. 2,94,755/- and Rs. 30,000/- as salary) were deemed insufficient to warrant custodial interrogation, especially considering she is a woman and ready to cooperate. The Court struck a balance between the need for investigation and preventing harassment, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary in the interest of investigation. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, and to make herself available for interrogation, not induce witnesses, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mitali Sachin Adhikari, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 220/2023, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that Sachin Adhikari, Tejaswini Sachin Adhikari, and Shashikant Tadage siphoned funds from Britt World Wide India Pvt. Ltd. and BWW Global Pvt. Ltd. by fabricating documents and transferring approximately Rs. 139 Crores to shell companies owned by Sachin and Tejaswini Adhikari. The informant alleged that the petitioner was an ultimate beneficiary of these funds. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transactions were commercial, GST was paid, and the Bombay High Court had granted transit pre-arrest bail, noting the commercial nature of the dispute. The petitioner claimed to be an employee who only drew a salary and had cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the economic nature of the offense and the need for custodial interrogation, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of economic offenses and the need for custodial interrogation? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The entire transaction was a commercial one between two companies, GST was paid, and the Bombay High Court had granted transit pre-arrest bail, observing the commercial nature of the dispute. The petitioner claimed to be a mere employee, drawing only a salary, and not involved in the alleged offenses. She had cooperated with the investigating agency, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court's order. Revenue/State's arguments: The case involved economic offenses, which are serious and form a class apart, warranting denial of pre-arrest bail, as held by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement. Custodial interrogation was indispensable for a proper investigation, and the petitioner had not fully cooperated despite appearing once. The informant argued that the petitioner's parents were involved, and the petitioner was a beneficiary. The Bombay High Court may not have had all materials before it.