Munimakula Sumalatha vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioners, Munimakula Sumalatha and Cherela Kumaraswamy, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 208 of 2025, registered for offenses under Sections 467, 468, 420, and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve swindling Rs. 1,46,54,204/- by inducing the informant and the company's Director to invest in their company, Vishwa Infra. The petitioners allegedly used forged company addresses on the GST portal. Between December 24, 2022, and November 13, 2023, the informant's company, End 2 End Private Ltd, invested this amount. A Memorandum of Understanding was in place for the return of funds. Two cheques issued by the petitioners were not presented for encashment at their request, and their validity has elapsed. Legal notices sent to the petitioners' GST portal and residential addresses returned with the endorsement 'no such company is existing'. Witness statements in the case diary support the allegations of swindling. A notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners, who allegedly did not reply or cooperate.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the attending facts and circumstances of the case, which indicated serious allegations of swindling a significant amount of money. The Court took into account the evidence gathered during the inquiry, including the non-existence of the company and the forged addresses used on the GST portal. The fact that legal notices returned with the endorsement 'no such company is existing' further supported the prosecution's case. Additionally, the State's submission that the petitioners had not cooperated with the investigation, including not responding to a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., weighed heavily on the Court's decision. The Court found the allegations of cheating and forgery to be prima facie established, warranting custodial interrogation. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. The ratio decidendi is that anticipatory bail is not a blanket protection and will not be granted when there are strong prima facie grounds to believe that the accused have committed serious offenses involving financial fraud and have not cooperated with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 208 of 2025, for offenses under Sections 467, 468, 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the allegations against them are false and that they are apprehending arrest. They relied on the fact that the allegations of swindling and using forged addresses on the GST portal are fabricated. State's Contention: The State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. They highlighted the substantial amount invested by the informant and the findings of an inquiry that the company in question does not exist. Furthermore, the State pointed out that one of the petitioners is facing another case of an identical nature in the State of Orissa. The State also noted the non-cooperation of the petitioners with the investigation, including their failure to respond to a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C.