Himanshu Nishith Saraswat vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Himanshu Nishith Saraswat, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR C.R.No.I-07 of 2022 registered with C.I.D. Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003. The principal accused, Wasimraja, allegedly lured investors with false promises of high returns through his business, KETSAAL Retails LLP. The applicant, an employee of Wasimraja, is accused of abetting the principal accused by preparing false invoices to facilitate more investment. The applicant claimed false implication as an employee, while the prosecution alleged his involvement in over-billing, bogus GST e-way bills, and GST numbers, leading to financial benefits of Rs. 68 lacs. Criminal cases of a similar nature were also registered against the applicant in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, holding that while the applicant was an employee of the principal accused and a qualified CA managing the company's accounts, his bank accounts showed significant debits and transfers to individuals mentioned in the statements. The Court formed a prima facie view that his association with the principal accused led to his implication. Considering the bonafide shown by the applicant in offering to deposit Rs. 20 lacs and the role attributed to him, the application deserved consideration. The Court, without commenting on the merits, directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 10 lacs within 10 days of his release and the remaining amount within two months. This deposited amount was to be invested in a Fixed Deposit for three years, renewable until the conclusion of the trial. The applicant was also directed to file an undertaking to this effect. The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to standard bail conditions, including surrendering his passport and not leaving India without prior permission. The Court explicitly stated that nothing in the order amounted to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, an employee accused of abetting the principal accused by preparing false invoices and advising on GST matters, is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and financial fraud, and the existence of similar cases against him in other states? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 114, 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(6), 506 IPC, and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated as an employee and had not made any representations to investors to induce them. He submitted that the investigation concerning him was virtually over and prayed for discretion in his favour. Without prejudice, he offered to deposit Rs. 20 lacs within two months of his release. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the applicant, as an employee, advised the principal accused on over-billing, bogus GST e-way bills, and GST numbers, thereby gaining financial benefits exceeding Rs. 68 lacs. They also highlighted the existence of similar criminal cases against the applicant in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, arguing that it was not a fit case for bail.