Bhaveshbhai Jyantilal Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Bhaveshbhai Jyantilal Patel, filed a successive bail application after the chargesheet was filed in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, who was the Chief Finance Officer of Ambition Mica Private Limited, is alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and falsification of accounts, defrauding the company of Rs. 28,78,05,884/-. This alleged fraud stemmed from a deficiency in raw material, work-in-progress, and finished goods discovered during a stock verification. The applicant has been in judicial custody since June 24, 2022. The Sessions Court had previously denied his bail application on October 8, 2022.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on bail. The Court noted that the applicant was an employee of the company and the alleged offence occurred between 2015-2021. It observed that, apart from witness statements, no incriminating material was found in the applicant's custody, and verification of his bank accounts did not reveal any monetary benefits received. The Court concluded that the prosecution's case relied on documentary evidence already part of the chargesheet and that the applicant's further custody was not necessary for investigation. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, and considering the applicant's availability for trial, the Court found it appropriate to release him on bail. The applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution interests, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, and providing his latest address. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, considering the applicant's role as Chief Finance Officer and the allegations of financial motivation behind the FIR? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 406, 409, 420, 477A IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that even if the allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie case is established. He contended that the FIR is financially motivated, aimed at securing GST gains and relief from bank loans. The applicant asserted that as CFO, he was not entrusted with accounting or stock management, which were the duties of the factory in-charge and storekeeper. He also argued that Section 409 IPC was wrongly invoked as its ingredients were not met. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and original informant opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant was in charge of the company's entire affairs, including sales, stock, and accounting. They reiterated that the applicant was the mastermind who defrauded the company by falsifying accounts and disposing of goods for personal gain, asserting reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offence.