Ranjita Pegu vs. The State Of Assam

This application is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely Mrs. Ranjita Pegu in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No.2446/2021, under Section 406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant stated a brief facts leading to filing of the present petition as under:- (i) The accused/applicant is the proprietor of M/S Ram Electronics & Equipment’s registered office at Ward No.29, Bhetapara, Main Road, Gosaibari, Borsajai, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup(M), Assam. She also has the trade license issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati to deal with E-Rickshaw Sale & Service. Moreover, the applicant is having the Importer-Exporter Code issued by the Office of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Guwahati and GST registration certificate. (ii) The applicant admitted that on 03.08.2021, she purchased 35(Thirty-five) Nos. of E- Rickshaw from the M/S Bhavaani Builder, situated at Sipani Niwas, Haripatty, Tezpur for an amount of Rs.29,39,475/-(Rupees Twenty-Nine lakhs thirty-nine thousand, four hundred seventy-five) only and there was an agreement between the parties that the applicant will pay the consideration amount on installments basis subject to sell of the said battery-operated E-Rickshaws and the payment made by the dealer against them. (iii) Accordingly, the accused /applicant paid the amount of Rs.12,30,000/-(Rupees Twelve lakhs thirty thousand) only to the informant’s account through banking mood from her account of HDFC Bank, G. S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, and the Canara Bank, Guwahati as well as she paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs)only to the account of Nilesh Enterprise same through the banking mood. Overall, till date the accused/applicant had paid the amount of Rs.14,30,000/-(Rupees Fourteen lakhs thirty thousand) only to the informant and the same is reflected in the Ledger Book.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the offences under which it is registered is compoundable in nature, and a negotiation process is going on between the informant and the accused to settle the issue amicably. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant is law abiding citizen and she has no any criminal records. As per the order dated 05.05.2022, the applicant was granted pre-arrest bail and appeared before the IO and given her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no question of absconding of the applicant, if her prayer for extending interim pre-arrest bail is made absolute, she will cooperate with the IO.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 & 03.08.2022, the applicant was ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the informant, but, due to financial hardship, she could not pay the amount at present. As the applicant had already appeared before the IO and also cooperating with the investigation of this case, further custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not at all necessary for the purpose of investigation.

In this context, learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.53/2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10484/2019, where, it was held that; “A Criminal Court, exercising juri iction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too without any trial.” Further, he also relied in the decision of this Court passed in the AB/3502/2021 dated 20.07.2022, where relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the interim order absolute, expressing the view, that the Court cannot act as the recovery agent.

Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the informant submits that the accused/applicant had intention or mens rea of cheating the informant by purchasing E-Rickshaw. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant obtained pre-arrest bail from this Court vide order dated 05.05.2022, where, she was directed to pay the money to the informant within 30.07.2022, but the accused/ applicant failed to follow the direction passed by this Court. And again, vide order dated 03.08.2022, the accused/applicant was Page No.# 4/5 directed by this Court to pay the amount of 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs) only to the informant, within a period of 4(four) weeks, but the accused failed to comply the said order too. Thus, the conduct of the accused/applicant reveals that she had the intention to cheat and deceive the informant hence, for the above mentioned reasons, the present interim pre-arrest bail is liable to be vacated at this stage.

In this context, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary reveals that the accused/applicant had entered appearance before the IO and given her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection with this case. But, she failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and could not return the money as promised by her. The applicant also submitted before the IO that she is ready and willing to return the money to the informant, but due to financial hardship, she could not return the money as promised to the informant.

After hearing the submission made by the learned Advocates of both side, and also perusing the case diary, it reveals that the accused/applicant has already appeared before the IO, and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded by the IO in connection with this case. But, at the same time, it is seen that as per the order of this Court dated 05.05.2022, she was granted interim pre- arrest bail and also directed to pay the balance amount within 30.07.2022 and again on 03.08.2022 same kind of order was passed by this Court directing the applicant to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs) only to the informant within a period of 4(four) weeks. In the said order it was also observed that “if no payments are made, the Court will re-consider extending the interim order”, and further, vide order dated 21.11.2022, the accused/applicant was directed to pay the balance amount in compliance of the orders dated 05.05.2022 and 03.08.2022. 10. Thus, it is seen that while, granting interim pre-arrest bail or while extending the interim pre-arrest bail, this Court directed the accused/applicant to make payment of balance amount to the informant. Further, from the Case Diary as well as from the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is seen that the applicant could not pay balance amount to the informant in compliance to the said order. In this context, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant admitted the fact that she could not pay the balance amount due to her heavy loss and financial hardship, which arose due to Covid-19 pandemic, but, she is still ready to pay the amount to the informant and she never denied that there is some amount to be paid to the informant. But, only for the payment of balance amount her custodial interrogation is not necessary as she has already appeared before the IO and cooperated with the investigation of this case and further, keeping the accused/applicant in the custody will not serve the purpose of repayment of balance amount of money neither her custodial interrogation

Though the present interim pre-arrest bail was granted along with the direction to pay balance amount to the informant, but, she failed to comply with the order of this Court and could not make payment as per her statement made before the IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but, it is to be seen as to whether the further, custodial interrogation of the present accused/applicant is necessary or not. As the Case Diary reveals that she has cooperated with the IO in the investigation of this case and also appeared before the IO with the direction of the Court after obtaining the interim pre-arrest bail. But, at the same it is stated that she did not comply with the order passed by this Court to make payment to the informant.

Considering the nature of offence, and only for non-recovery of money, I am of the opinion that the custodial interrogation is not at all necessary here in this case.

In view of above, this Court is inclined to make the interim pre-arrest order dated 29.11.2022, absolute in the same terms and conditions, and also directed the applicant to appear before the IO for further investigation of the case as well as directed to pay the balance payment to the informant in pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2022 and 03.08.2022 passed by this Court.

With above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of.

Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant