Mr Rahul Jadav vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Rahul Jadav, Director of Rahul Jewellery Creations Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail. He apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 284/2024 registered at West CEN Police Station, Bengaluru. The FIR was lodged by Meena Bai V.N. for offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act and Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The informant alleged receiving a prize notification and subsequently transferring approximately Rs. 18 lakhs to various bank accounts. The petitioner, a businessman from Kolkata, stated that two individuals purchased gold ornaments worth Rs. 30 lakhs from him, for which he issued an invoice with GST details. Subsequently, his bank account was frozen. He claims to have settled the matter by paying an amount after coming to Bengaluru. His application to unfreeze his account was allowed on June 12, 2024. He then received a notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.PC, leading to his apprehension of arrest. The informant had also filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner's account.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR, and his specific bank account was not mentioned in the initial complaint. The Court noted that while the informant claimed to have transferred Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner's account, the bank statement of the informant was not produced to substantiate this claim, and the account number itself was not in the FIR. The Court also observed that the petitioner's application to unfreeze his bank account had been allowed. Given these facts, the Court found no grounds necessitating custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The Court concluded that the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of arrest due to the notice issued under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, not committing similar offences, appearing when required, and not tampering with witnesses. The issue of the informant's application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. was left to be decided by the learned Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime No. 284/2024? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he is a businessman from Kolkata dealing in gold jewellery and had issued an invoice with GST details for a transaction worth Rs. 30 lakhs. His bank account was frozen, and he was compelled to pay an amount to settle the matter. He further argued that his application to unfreeze his account was allowed, and he was subsequently issued a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., leading to a reasonable apprehension of arrest. He also pointed out that his bank account was not mentioned in the FIR and that the informant's claim of transferring Rs. 5 lakhs to his account was not substantiated by the informant's bank statement. Respondent's Arguments: The learned counsel for the informant argued that on February 28, 2024, the informant had transferred Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner's HDFC Bank account in Kolkata, bearing account number 50200020449189, as evidenced by a statement of account. However, this account number was not mentioned in the FIR. The respondent also noted that an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner's account was pending.