Preeti Saxena vs. The State Jharkhand

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner is a lady; the company, Istruzion Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd., which is registered under the GST Act, is the entity that allegedly cheated the schools; the petitioner is neither a director nor an employee of this company. Her husband, Sanwill Srivastava, was acting on behalf of the company. While transactions were made from her husband's bank account where she was a nominee, and she accompanied her husband to schools where assurances were given, the Court found these facts insufficient to deny anticipatory bail. The Court also noted her cooperation with the investigation by responding to notices. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of alleged corporate fraud, the direct involvement and intent of an individual, particularly a woman with no directorship or employment in the offending company, must be clearly established before denying anticipatory bail, especially when she has cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner was directed to surrender and furnish bail bonds, cooperate with the investigation, and appear before the Investigating Officer every 15 days until the chargesheet submission.

Facts

The petitioner, Preeti Saxena, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case involves allegations of cheating where the petitioner and others, claiming to be from Istruzion Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd., allegedly induced victims to invest Rs. 32,57,500/- by promising educational benefits, housing, and vehicles funded by a UK-based charity. The promised items were not delivered, and the accused absconded. The petitioner argued she is innocent, not a director or employee of the company, and was implicated solely due to being the wife of a director. The State opposed the bail, asserting the petitioner's involvement in collecting money and that witnesses supported the prosecution. The Court noted the petitioner is a lady, her husband is a director of the GST-registered company, and transactions were made from her husband's account where she was a nominee. The petitioner is a teacher, not directly involved with the company's assurances, and had cooperated with the investigation by replying to notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering her alleged role in a cheating case involving the collection of Rs. 32,57,500/-. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that she is innocent and falsely implicated, not being a director or employee of Istruzion Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd. She argued she had no role in the alleged offence, no involvement in transactions, and no intent to cheat. She relied on her status as a teacher and her lack of direct connection to the company's assurances. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing the petitioner is not entitled to it. They contended that the petitioner took a large sum of money from victims by making false promises and that witnesses examined during the investigation supported the prosecution's case.