Aashish Tiwari vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Aashish Tiwari, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 341 dated 07.12.2020, registered under Sections 408 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. The FIR was filed by Mohan Lal Bhattacharya, alleging that from April 2019 to September 2020, accused persons, including the petitioner, did not deposit a portion of the company's received amount, leading to a shortage discovered when filing GST. The petitioner was employed as a Data Entry Operator, while others were Cashier and Lead Data Entry Operator. The petitioner was granted interim bail on 08.02.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation. The State and complainant did not dispute this fact and stated the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, Aashish Tiwari, had joined the investigation as per the interim bail order dated 08.02.2021. The learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, did not dispute this factual position. They further submitted that the petitioner was no longer required for any further investigation. In light of these submissions, the Court found no impediment to confirming the interim bail. The Court allowed the petition, making the interim bail absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The reasoning was primarily based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the State's concession that further custodial interrogation was not necessary. The core allegations regarding the shortage of funds and the petitioner's role were not substantively decided, as the decision hinged on procedural compliance and the State's stance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a Data Entry Operator, can be held liable for the alleged shortage of funds in the company's account, particularly when the FIR does not attribute to him any authority to receive amounts, which was the primary duty of other accused? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 408 and 34 of the IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner was merely a Data Entry Operator and lacked the authority to receive any funds, a duty assigned to other accused. - The complainant was not vigilant in checking accounts for 1.5 years, and the delay in discovering the shortage and registering the FIR suggests a lack of diligence. - The FIR itself states that cash was accounted for daily, and there are no direct allegations of the petitioner receiving cash. - Relied on a previous order granting interim anticipatory bail to another accused in the same FIR. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: - The respondent, through learned counsel, did not dispute that the alleged shortage of funds pertained to the period of April 2019 to September 2020. - The respondent, assisted by the complainant's counsel, stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required.