Aru Nanda vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Aru Nanda, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 21 dated 04.02.2021, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector-53, Gurugram. The FIR was filed on the complaint of Sanjay Singh Tanwar, Director of M/s Starcrest Services, a GST-registered company. The allegations were that Harish Kumar Rampal, a Chartered Accountant, entrusted with filing GST returns, manipulated returns and forged challans, causing a loss of over Rs. 14 crores to the complainant company. It was alleged that Rampal siphoned off funds, including Rs. 5.5 crores transferred to Pooja Sablok, an associate, and subsequently Rs. 31 lacs were transferred from Pooja Sablok's account to the petitioner, Aru Nanda, between 2018 and 2021. The petitioner claimed the amount was a friendly loan from her sister, Pooja Sablok, and that Rs. 21 lacs had been returned.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail and made the interim order absolute. The Court noted that the allegations in the FIR were primarily against Harish Kumar Rampal, the Chartered Accountant responsible for filing GST returns. The petitioner's involvement was limited to the transfer of some amount. The Court considered that Rs. 21 lakhs out of Rs. 31 lakhs allegedly received by the petitioner had been returned to Pooja Sablok, and the remaining Rs. 10 lakhs had been deposited with the trial court, with no objection to its transfer to the GST Authorities. The petitioner had also joined the investigation. The Court clarified that the deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs was without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the complainant, and did not constitute an admission of guilt or a final settlement. The observations were made solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and would not prejudice the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of receiving funds allegedly siphoned off from GST deposits, and the State's contention that further recovery is to be made? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that she was not involved in defrauding the complainant company, lived separately from her sister Pooja Sablok, and was unaware of her sister's dealings. She asserted that the amount received was a friendly loan, with Rs. 21 lacs already returned to Pooja Sablok. The petitioner offered to cooperate with the investigation and deposit Rs. 10 lacs with the trial court to show bonafide. She later submitted that this amount be released to the GST Authorities. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the anticipatory bail, stating that the petitioner had joined the investigation on three occasions but some recovery was still pending. The State also pointed out that a Kia car purchased by Pooja Sablok from the alleged illicit funds was in the petitioner's possession, and a flat was purchased in the petitioner's name, with documents yet to be recovered. The complainant argued that the Rs. 10 lacs payment should not be construed as a full and final settlement entitling the petitioner to quash the FIR.