Amit Panda vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Panda, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 128 dated May 27, 2022, registered under Section 420 of the IPC at PS Sadar Mansa, District Mansa. The FIR was based on a complaint by Roop Singh, proprietor of M/s Roop Agriculture Works. Roop Singh alleged that the petitioner, Amit Panda, induced him to open an office in Bhawanipatna, Odisha, for business expansion. Roop Singh obtained a GST number for this office, with the address of M/s Kritibidhan Enterprises, and the GST password was with Amit Panda. Roop Singh later realized the Odisha office was not profitable and that Amit Panda had conducted sales and purchases under his firm's GST certificate from Odisha, despite no significant transactions from that location. Roop Singh claimed Amit Panda committed breach of trust and cheated him, and had not deposited GST with the government. The petitioner had previously been denied anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. The High Court had directed the State to produce incriminatory material against the petitioner. The status report filed by the State merely reproduced the complainant's allegations without detailing incriminatory material. A contention raised by the State was the petitioner's failure to join the investigation.

Held

The Court noted that on the previous date of hearing, it had directed the petitioner to join the investigation and furnish all relevant records. The Court had also granted interim bail, subject to these conditions, and warned that the interim protection would not be extended if the petitioner failed to comply. Today, the learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and was fully cooperating, and was not required for further custodial interrogation. In view of this specific stand by the State, the High Court allowed the petition and made the interim order absolute. The Court found that the petitioner's compliance with the investigation process negated the need for custodial interrogation, thus satisfying the conditions for anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that if an accused cooperates with the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail should be granted, especially when the prosecution cannot demonstrate the necessity of custodial detention. The operative direction was to make the interim bail absolute, subject to the petitioner abiding by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 128 dated May 27, 2022, registered under Section 420 of the IPC, considering the allegations of fraudulent inducement, breach of trust, and non-deposit of GST. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was ready and willing to join the investigation and submit all documentary evidence. The State's arguments: The State contended that the petitioner had failed to join the investigation despite being served with notices under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. The State also relied on the allegations made in the FIR regarding fraudulent transactions and non-deposit of GST.