Sanjeev Mahajan vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjeev Mahajan, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 85/2022 registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station EOW. The allegations involved financial irregularities in M/s Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetic Studio Pvt. Ltd., including procuring Rs. 10.34 Crores by forging signatures and siphoning off money payable towards GST for the company's West Bengal clinic. The petitioner had been granted interim protection by a coordinate bench on May 8, 2024, with a direction to cooperate with the investigation. The investigation has since been completed, and a chargesheet was filed on October 3, 2024. The petitioner argued that he had cooperated and no purpose would be served by his arrest. The State conceded to the petitioner's cooperation and had no objection to the interim protection being made absolute, though a supplementary chargesheet was to be filed.

Held

The Court held that the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated May 8, 2024, should be made absolute. This decision was based on several key factors: the completion of the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet against the applicant; the conceded fact that the applicant had been cooperating with the investigating agency and appearing as and when required; and the no-objection given by the learned APP for the State. The Court also took into account the State's contention regarding the filing of a supplementary chargesheet. The reasoning was that with the investigation substantially concluded and the applicant's cooperation established, continued custodial interrogation or arrest was not warranted for the purpose of further investigation. The operative direction was to make the interim protection absolute, releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to certain conditions including surrendering his passport and not leaving India without prior permission. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim protection granted to the petitioner should be made absolute, considering the completion of investigation, filing of chargesheet, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigating agency, as per Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he had been cooperating with the investigation as directed by the Court and that the investigation was complete with the filing of the chargesheet. Therefore, his arrest would serve no purpose, and the interim protection should be made absolute. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the learned APP, conceded that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigating agency and that the chargesheet had been filed. The State had no objection to the prayer for making the interim protection absolute, while also noting that a supplementary chargesheet was to be filed. Respondent No. 2's Arguments: The counsel for Respondent No. 2/complainant argued that it was incorrect to state that the petitioner had cooperated and that he was not entitled to the interim protection being made absolute.