Ekta Sinha vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's complicity in the criminal act cannot be denied. The Court noted that a substantial amount of public money was allegedly swindled by the petitioner's husband, and the petitioner benefited from these illegal transfers into her account and the account of her proprietorship firm, Ashwanita Medical Hall. The Court considered the fact that the bail application of the petitioner's husband, Satyam Sinha, had already been rejected by the High Court. The Court found that the petitioner had illegally received funds, and therefore, her involvement could not be overlooked. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ekta Sinha, seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Ishipur Barahat P.S. Case No. 100 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 420 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleges that the petitioner's husband, Satyam Sinha, the then Branch Manager of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, misappropriated Rs. 1,02,71,873.97 between June 5, 2021, and February 27, 2023, and that the petitioner and her family members benefited from the sale proceeds. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, but the duration of the alleged offence is stated. The petitioner admits that her husband transferred some amounts to her accounts from the sale proceeds and is willing to return the money if she knows the exact amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of misappropriation of public funds by her husband and the transfer of substantial amounts into her accounts and the account of her proprietorship firm, Ashwanita Medical Hall, thereby allegedly benefiting from the criminal act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner is a lady and the proprietor of Ashwanita Medical Hall. While admitting that her husband transferred some amounts to her accounts from the sale proceeds, she contends that these transfers were for no fault of her own. She is willing to return the amount but needs to know the exact sum transferred. She also states she will provide details of the initial money used to start her business and her GST/SGST returns. She argues that criminal action against her cannot be automatic for a common act alleged against her husband. Revenue/State's arguments: The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner's husband was rejected. The Court was referred to a supplementary counter-affidavit filed in the co-accused husband's bail application. It was submitted that Rs. 56,08,945.91 was deposited/transferred into the petitioner's and her relatives' accounts, with Rs. 27,85,930/- transferred to Ashwanita Medical Hall's account. The State argued that sufficient materials were collected showing substantial amounts transferred to the petitioner's and her firm's accounts. The petitioner's complicity cannot be denied due to common intention and benefiting from the embezzlement.