Udipta Kumar Behra vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Udipta Kumar Behera, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail. The bail was sought in connection with FIR No. 182 dated May 11, 2023, registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations are that the petitioner defrauded the informant, Pritpal Singh, and other victims of approximately Rs. 1.55 crore by luring them into commodity trading with promises of high returns. The investments were made between June 20, 2020, and October 20, 2021. The complainants allege that after initial profits, the petitioner began delaying payments, citing excuses like GST issues and frozen accounts, and eventually claimed the money was lost in trading. The total amount invested by the complainants, including alleged profits, was stated to be Rs. 2.79 crore.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The Court found that there was sufficient material with the police to prima facie indicate the petitioner's complicity. This was based on the allegations that the petitioner allured the informant through WhatsApp to invest in trading for heavy profits, and that the alleged amounts were transferred to the petitioner's account through RTGS between June 20, 2020, and October 20, 2021. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was evading the process of law by not joining the investigation, despite repeated raids. In light of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court explicitly stated that these observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 182 dated May 11, 2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and that the transactions were merely investments aimed at profit, thus no criminal offence is made out. He further contended that the amounts received from the informant and other investors have already been returned. Respondent's (State of Haryana and Informant) Contentions: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner is untraceable and evading legal process, necessitating his custodial interrogation to ascertain the true facts. The informant's counsel opposed the bail, stating that the petitioner defrauded victims of Rs. 1.55 crore, returning only Rs. 18 lakh, and that he forged records to evade the offense. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.