Tejaswini Sachin Adhikari vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court considered the parameters for granting anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra. It noted that the case diary indicated sufficient incriminating materials against the applicant, who, along with her husband and another individual, were de facto promoters and financial controllers of the companies. The Court found that funds were transferred from the two companies to nine shell companies owned by the petitioner and her husband, with the intention appearing questionable given the high amounts involved and the subsequent exit from the companies, leaving the informant in a difficult financial position. The Court was unimpressed by the submission that custodial interrogation was not required, especially in light of the allegation that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. Given the serious nature of the offenses involving defalcation of a huge amount of money and the nascent stage of the investigation, the Court deemed custodial interrogation indispensable to unearth the conspiracy and involved persons. Therefore, the privilege of pre-arrest bail could not be granted.

Facts

The petitioner, Tejaswini Sachin Adhikari, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 220/2023. The FIR was lodged by a director of Britt World Wide India Pvt. Ltd and BWW Global Pvt. Ltd. The allegations are that the petitioner, along with her husband and another individual, siphoned off funds from these companies by fabricating documents and issuing inflated bills. They allegedly transferred approximately ₹139 Crores directly and an additional ₹30-40 Crores through fabricated bills and over-invoicing to nine shell companies owned by the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner claims the transactions were commercial, audited, and GST was paid, and that she has cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of economic offenses and the need for custodial interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of economic offenses involving siphoning of substantial funds and fabrication of documents? The petitioner argued that the transactions were purely commercial, supported by audited accounts and GST payments. They relied on a Bombay High Court order granting transit pre-arrest bail in a similar matter, emphasizing that the genesis of the case was a commercial transaction. The petitioner also asserted cooperation with the investigating officer and stated that custodial interrogation was not necessary. The respondent State argued that the offenses were economic in nature, which are a distinct class and do not warrant pre-arrest bail, citing the Supreme Court's decision in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement. They contended that sufficient incriminating materials were collected, and custodial interrogation was indispensable for unearthing the conspiracy, especially as the petitioner had not fully cooperated. The informant's counsel further argued that the Bombay High Court did not have the complete case materials and that the petitioner and others defrauded the informant, leaving the company in a precarious financial state.