Lalit Kumar S/O Shri Nathu Singh vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Lalit Kumar, apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No. 840/2022 registered at Police Station Neemrana, Bhiwari, Alwar, for an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, proprietor of Vinay Enterprises, alleged that the petitioner, an employee, received over Rs. 26,00,000/- in his bank account, which represented EPF, ESI of employees, and GST amounts. The informant later took back these amounts. The petitioner claims he acted under the informant's pressure and was merely an employee, but his failure to report this to anyone raises suspicion of conspiracy.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning is based on the serious allegations of misappropriation involving a significant sum of over Rs. 26,00,000/-, which included GST amounts. While the petitioner claimed to be a mere employee acting under pressure, his failure to bring these suspicious transactions to the notice of anyone else led the Court to believe that his conspiracy and involvement could not be ruled out. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed. The Court also noted that a prayer for regular bail could be considered later without prejudice to this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of misappropriation of funds including GST amounts and the petitioner's alleged role as an employee receiving and returning substantial sums? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that he was merely an employee acting under the informant's pressure and had no independent role in the alleged misappropriation. He argues that his actions were dictated by the informant. Respondent's (State's) Argument: The State argues that the petitioner's involvement cannot be ruled out, particularly due to his failure to report the suspicious transactions to any authority, suggesting a potential conspiracy. The substantial amount transferred to his account and subsequently returned by the informant raises concerns about his complicity.