Padam vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioners, Sheetal and Padam, are seeking anticipatory bail in multiple FIRs registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners claim to be traders in Delhi who received goods from co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod, asserting they are mere consumers with no direct involvement in the alleged crime. They contend the matter is civil in nature, concerning non-payment of dues rather than cheating, and that the police have already recovered the goods. The State, however, argues that documents submitted by the petitioners, including GST details and firm names, were found to be fabricated. The investigation suggests the co-accused purchased goods from complainants, supplied them to the petitioners, who then illegally sold them, causing a loss of approximately three crores. The State also alleges a conspiracy involving misappropriation of funds after initial payments were made.

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners, Sheetal and Padam, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court found that the investigation revealed the petitioners were actively involved in a conspiracy with co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod. This conspiracy involved purchasing goods from complainants, constituting fake firms, and inducing the complainants to sell goods under false pretenses. The petitioners allegedly sold these goods illegally in the market, causing a loss of approximately three crores. The Court noted that the documents submitted by the petitioners, purportedly showing the purchase of clothes, were found to be forged and fabricated, with non-existent GST numbers and firm details. The Court also highlighted that the petitioners were in constant contact with the main accused, indicating their active role in deceiving the complainants. Given that the investigation is still pending and custodial interrogation might lead to further recovery and disclosure of facts regarding the misappropriated goods, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court observed that the petitioners had previously attempted to evade custodial investigation through Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitions, which were dismissed, and their current bail applications also failed to persuade the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR Nos. 436/2022, 524/2022, 522/2022, 503/2022, 526/2022, 530/2022, 519/2022, 529/2022, 525/2022, 436/2022, 519/2022, 525/2022, 503/2022, 529/2022, 526/2022, 522/2022, 524/2022, 530/2022, 435/2022 & 435/2022, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they are consumers and traders based in Delhi, who received goods from co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod. They claimed no direct involvement in the alleged crime, asserting the dispute is purely civil, relating to non-payment of dues, not cheating. They also stated that the goods in question have been recovered and custodial investigation is unnecessary. They relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted in cases of civil disputes or where no custodial interrogation is required. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State contended that the documents submitted by the petitioners, including GST numbers and firm details, were fabricated and non-existent. They presented evidence that the petitioners submitted forged bills for the recovered clothes, indicating a conspiracy with Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod to dupe complainants of approximately three crores. The State argued that custodial investigation is necessary to uncover further clues regarding the misappropriated goods and the conspiracy.