Vikash Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 267 dated 09.09.2021, registered at Police Station Industrial Sector-7 Manesar, District Gurugram, initially under Section 420 of the IPC, with Sections 467, 471, and 120-B of the IPC added later. The FIR concerns allegations related to a loan of Rs. 10 Lakhs from Sundaram Finance and Mundra Finance. The petitioner claimed to have paid Rs. 4,24,953/- towards process fee, endorsement, file charges, GST, NEFT, and insurance. The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, and the amount was allegedly not transferred to his account. He was nominated in the disclosure statement of co-accused who had been granted regular bail. The High Court had previously granted interim anticipatory bail on 14.02.2023, directing the petitioner to join the investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim anticipatory bail absolute. The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation as directed. While the State counsel contended that the petitioner was not cooperating, they were unable to provide specifics regarding this non-cooperation. Considering the factual position previously noted, including the petitioner's alleged payment of a substantial sum for loan processing, the absence of his name in the FIR, and the fact that co-accused had been granted regular bail, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to continue to join the investigation as and when called upon by the Investigating Agency and to abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations and the facts presented? The petitioner argued that the amount paid (Rs. 4,24,953/-) for a Rs. 10 Lakh loan seemed improbable. He also contended that his name was not in the FIR, the money was not transferred to him, and he was only named in a co-accused's disclosure statement, with the co-accused having been granted regular bail. The petitioner relied on the fact that he had joined the investigation as per the interim order. The State, through the learned State counsel, argued that the petitioner had joined the investigation but was not cooperating. However, the State counsel was unable to specify the manner of non-cooperation.