Ashish And Anr vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The case involves two petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. CRM-M-3559-2020 was filed by Ashish and Mukesh Kumar seeking anticipatory bail. CRM-M-10170-2020 was filed by Indu Bansal, the complainant in the FIR, seeking directions for proper investigation and arrest of accused. The FIR was lodged by Indu Bansal alleging that Ashish and his father, Mukesh Kumar, defrauded her husband and fabricated bills. Ashish was employed to develop an app, and substantial amounts were paid for software and its development. Allegations include demands for cash payments, issuance of bogus bills, and subsequent threats. The petitioners claim the dispute is civil in nature and they have been falsely implicated, pointing to a GST number for Ashish's firm and a loan taken by the complainant's husband. The State contends that bills issued in 2018 by Ashish's firm, registered in 2019, are fabricated, and custodial interrogation is required.

Held

The Court addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail to Ashish and Mukesh Kumar, the Court found direct allegations against Ashish concerning the taking of money and the issuance of false bills, as his firm was registered in 2019 but bills were issued in 2018. Furthermore, Ashish's alleged misuse of interim bail by lodging a false FIR and subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC, along with allegations of threats, disentitled him from anticipatory bail. However, the allegations against Mukesh Kumar, Ashish's father, were considered vague, primarily limited to introducing his son to the complainant's husband. Therefore, Mukesh Kumar was granted anticipatory bail, and the interim bail was made absolute for him. Secondly, concerning the complainant's petition for directions for proper investigation, the Court found no grounds to issue any directions, stating that the investigation was pending and being conducted thoroughly, fairly, and impartially. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, Ashish and Mukesh Kumar, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 001 dated 02.01.2020, registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Sonipat City, Sonipat, considering the allegations of financial fraud and fabrication of bills? Petitioner's arguments: The dispute is civil and financial in nature. Ashish has a GST number, and a loan was taken by the complainant's husband, indicating a money transaction. The FIR was lodged to settle a financial dispute. They have joined the investigation and cooperated. Respondent's (State) arguments: Ashish's firm was registered in May 2019, but he issued bills for 2018, indicating fabricated documents. Custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of Rs. 9,55,000/- and to ascertain the manner of generating forged bills. Petitioners have not cooperated regarding recovery and disclosure of sources of forged bills. 2. Whether directions are required for proper investigation and arrest of accused in the said FIR? Petitioner's (complainant) arguments: Ashish misused interim bail by lodging a false FIR (Annexure P-10) to pressurize the complainant, leading to proceedings under Section 182 IPC. Ashish has repeatedly threatened the complainant and her husband. The petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.