Vaishali W/O. Raya Manjrekar vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Vaishali W/o. Raya Manjrekar, accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 78/2023 registered at Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubballi, for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court rejected her bail petition without appreciating the facts and that the allegations were false, with no specific evidence connecting her to the crime. She claimed to be a government official performing her duties and that the allegations were civil in nature. The respondent, the State of Karnataka, through its Public Prosecutor, argued that accused No. 1, Raghuprasad Nayak, misrepresented to the complainant that Kendriya Bhandar Panjim Goa issued orders without tender. The petitioner, as an in-charge at Kendriya Bhandar, allegedly induced the complainant to become a member by depositing Rs. 50,000/- and to supply materials through accused No. 3, Rushab Ventures Private Limited. The complainant deposited a total of Rs. 3,14,26,348/- for the supply of dustbins and paid Rs. 12,41,850/- towards GST. Despite supply, a significant amount of Rs. 3,52,22,758/- plus interest remained due, with only Rs. 75,00,000/- paid through another company of accused No. 3.

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, which implicated all accused including the petitioner in cheating the complainant by misleading them into supplying materials without making payments, required thorough investigation. The Court found that the custodial presence of the petitioner was necessary for this investigation. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case was not a fit one for granting anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the gravity of the allegations of cheating and the need for custodial interrogation to unravel the full extent of the conspiracy and financial fraud. The Court did not specifically discuss any GST provisions but noted the complainant's payment of GST and the subsequent non-reimbursement as part of the overall financial loss. The Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as accused No. 2, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and misrepresentation in Crime No. 78/2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations were false, lacked specific evidence against her, and were essentially civil in nature. She asserted her position as a government servant acting within protocol and denied any nexus with the alleged crime or directing the complainant to supply materials through accused No. 3. She claimed to be from a respectable family and willing to abide by any conditions. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner, as an in-charge at Kendriya Bhandar, along with accused No. 1, misled the complainant into believing that orders were placed without tender. The petitioner allegedly induced the complainant to deposit money and supply materials through accused No. 3, leading to a substantial financial loss for the complainant, including non-payment of GST. The respondent argued that custodial presence of the petitioner was necessary for investigation, and thus, anticipatory bail should be rejected.