Akshita Sharma vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Akshita Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 55/2022 registered at Tumakuru CEN Police Station for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint was filed by Pavan Kumar Biradar, alleging that he and others were appointed by Mobicat Digital India Pvt. Ltd. The company allegedly engaged in services like Pan card, travel ticket booking, and money transfer. A specific allegation involved a master distributor transferring Rs. 2,75,000/- plus 18% GST (Rs. 3,24,500/-) for distribution IDs and retail customers. The complainant alleged that the company failed to pay salaries for five months and threatened employees. The total amount allegedly mobilized by cheating was Rs. 50,48,500/-. The petitioner's anticipatory bail petition was rejected by the Sessions Judge, leading to the present petition.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the major allegations in the complaint were directed against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and no specific allegations were made against the present petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was an employee, specifically a Business Development Manager in the Sales & Marketing Department, and had resigned on 02.12.2021. The Court reasoned that she was not a Director nor had she floated the company to take an active part in the alleged cheating. Concerning the second issue, the Court held that merely residing in Gurgaon could not be a ground for rejecting her bail petition, especially as she was an employee. The Court acknowledged that the alleged offences were not punishable exclusively with death or life imprisonment and that the petitioner was a woman, falling under an exception. The apprehension of tampering with witnesses could be addressed by imposing conditions. The Court directed the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including surrendering within fifteen days, not tampering with witnesses, not indulging in similar offences, making herself available for investigation, and marking attendance on the second Saturday of each month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as an employee of Mobicat Digital India Pvt. Ltd., can be held liable for the alleged fraudulent activities of the company, particularly when specific allegations are directed against other accused? 2. Whether the petitioner's residence in Gurgaon, Haryana, is a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail due to the apprehension of tampering with witnesses? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that she was merely an employee in the Sales & Marketing Department and not a Director or a founder of the company. She highlighted that specific allegations were made against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and no specific role was attributed to her in the cheating. She also submitted proof of her resignation on 02.12.2021 and her subsequent employment elsewhere. The petitioner contended that her status as an employee, who herself did not receive salary for months, should be considered. Respondent's (State of Karnataka) Arguments: The learned HCGP contended that the petitioner, being a resident of Gurgaon, had a possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses. No other specific arguments were recorded.