Manoj Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Balaji Concrete Product, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 55 dated 01.03.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. The FIR was lodged by the BDPO Badhra alleging that Mukesh Kumar, the Panchayat Secretary, in connivance with others including the petitioner's firm, had committed fraud to the tune of Rs. 28,61,459/-. The allegation was that this amount was transferred to the petitioner's firm's account without the supply of any material. The petitioner claimed he had supplied interlocking tiles, issued invoices, received payments, and paid GST on these transactions. The Panchayat Secretary was alleged to have forged cheques and withdrawn money. The petitioner argued that the Panchayat Secretary confessed to receiving only a commission and that he himself had no role in the alleged fraud. The Panchayat Secretary is in judicial custody.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the serious allegations contained in the FIR and the fact that the petitioner, in connivance with others, had allegedly caused a loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 28,61,459/-. The Court noted the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that neither any work was done nor any material was supplied by the petitioner's firm, and the amount was transferred to his firm's account. The Court concluded that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the recovery of the misappropriated amount and to ascertain the involvement of other persons. Therefore, the concession of anticipatory bail was denied. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of fraud and misappropriation of government funds? The petitioner argued that he had supplied the goods, issued invoices, received payments, and paid GST, thus fulfilling his part of the transaction. He contended that the Panchayat Secretary confessed to forging cheques and withdrawing money, and that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged fraud. He relied on a Supreme Court order in a similar case. The respondent, State of Haryana, argued that there were serious allegations against the petitioner for colluding with the Village Secretary to misappropriate government money, causing a loss of Rs. 28,61,459/-. The Additional Sessions Judge noted that neither any work was done nor any material supplied by the petitioner's firm, and the amount was transferred to his firm's account. The court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for recovery of the misappropriated amount and involvement of other persons.