Shalesh Yadav @ Shailesh Yadav vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Shalesh Yadav, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in FIR No. 44 dated 29.12.2023, registered at ACB Gurugram, Haryana, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988. The FIR stemmed from a complaint alleging corruption against Mukesh Gupta, Deputy Superintendent, Public Health Engineering Department. An inquiry revealed that approval letters for works, totaling approximately Rs. 3,90,844, were issued under forged signatures. The petitioner, owner of M/s Maheen Trading Company, allegedly submitted forged quotations for 27 works, along with quotations from two other firms, to co-accused Sushil Kumar (JE) and Surender Singh (Sub Divisional Engineer). The petitioner's GST number on forged quotations was different from his actual GST number. The petitioner claims he is a contractor and a scapegoat, with the primary fraud initiated by government officials.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the allegations of submitting forged quotations and the involvement of government officials in a fraudulent tender process amounting to approximately Rs. 3,90,000/-, the Court noted that the present proceedings were for anticipatory bail and not for quashing the FIR or discharge. The Court found that the parameters for granting anticipatory bail are distinct from those for final adjudication. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation, the Court did not find any reason for pre-trial incarceration or custodial interrogation. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier was made absolute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of submitting forged quotations and collusion with public officials for fraudulent tender approvals? The petitioner argued that the allegations primarily concern fraud committed by government officials, and he, as a contractor, is being made a scapegoat. He contended that his signatures were not found on the forged quotations, and the GST number used was incorrect, suggesting he was not the perpetrator of the core fraud. The petitioner emphasized that the main responsibility for cross-checking and tender initiation lay with the Deputy Superintendent and Junior Engineer. The State argued that while the petitioner had joined the investigation, custodial interrogation was necessary to understand the modus operandi of the alleged fraud. The State sought to establish the petitioner's active involvement in the fraudulent procurement process.