Amit Kumar vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 509/2023, registered under Section 408 IPC. The petitioner claimed he was a freelance accountant for the complainant and discovered illegal activities like hawala transactions and GST evasion. He alleged the complainant threatened him when he intended to report these activities. The petitioner stated only Rs. 14.50 lakhs were with him, which he deposited, and denied receiving Rs. 1.5 crores. He asserted compliance with investigation directives. The complainant alleged the petitioner absconded with Rs. 1.5 crores after being entrusted with it for bank deposit, and later threatened to withdraw the FIR. The FIR details indicate the complainant handed Rs. 1.5 crores and documents to the petitioner on October 7, 2023, for deposit on October 9, 2023. The petitioner allegedly left for Mathura on October 8, 2023, changed his SIM card, and became untraceable, with his last known location being Vrindavan.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found the petitioner's explanation for his sudden departure to Mathura and changing his SIM card unconvincing. The contention that the petitioner was threatened by the complainant was dismissed, as the Court reasoned that if threatened, the petitioner should have approached the authorities instead of absconding. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly, typically when allegations appear to be solely for harassment. The Court noted the State's submission that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and had allegedly threatened and blackmailed the complainant after the FIR registration. Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of breach of trust and misappropriation of funds, and the petitioner's alleged discovery of GST evasion and hawala transactions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued the FIR was based on false allegations. He claimed to have discovered illegal activities, including GST evasion, and intended to report them, leading to threats from the complainant. He asserted he did not receive the full amount alleged and had deposited the portion he held. He also claimed to have complied with all investigation directives. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, arguing the petitioner threatened the complainant to withdraw the FIR and had not cooperated with the investigation due to interim protection granted by the court. The complainant's counsel further argued that the petitioner, as an employee, committed a breach of trust and absconded with money meant for bank deposit.