Madhusudan H vs. State By Station House Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Madhusudan H, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 332/2023 registered at Jayanagar Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 409, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Jayanagar. It alleged that a sum of ₹13,80,367, already lawfully returned to M/s. Winewire Technologies Indian Pvt Ltd. for August 2017 to March 2018, was again transferred as an additional payment. This second transfer was allegedly made to the petitioner's account, which he withdrew. The petitioner is stated to be unrelated to the bank or firm, and the transaction was purportedly facilitated by misusing the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of a Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the prosecution's case that a GST amount of ₹13,80,367 was illegally credited to the petitioner's account as a third party, and that the petitioner's assertion of repayment in cash for an online transfer was questionable, the Court noted that the petitioner was not able to explain the transfer. However, the Court also observed that the misuse of a Commercial Tax Officer's DSC required further investigation into her role. Crucially, the petitioner undertook to offer a bank guarantee of the disputed amount. Considering that the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and in light of the petitioner's undertaking to provide a bank guarantee, the Court found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety, and furnishing a bank guarantee of ₹13,85,000 within one week of release. He was also subjected to several conditions, including surrendering within fifteen days, not tampering with witnesses, not indulging in similar offences, and making himself available for investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged fraudulent transfer and withdrawal of GST amount? The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the transaction and the amount was inadvertently remitted to his account, which he subsequently repaid in cash. He claimed to be made a scapegoat and undertook to abide by court conditions. The State, through the High Court Government Pleader, contended that the second transfer to the petitioner's account without his collusion was impossible. They argued that the claim of repayment in cash was unacceptable as the transfer was online, indicating the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy. The State also raised concerns about potential tampering with witnesses and the petitioner absconding if granted bail.