Aakash Chaturbhuj Chhabaria vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. Regarding Issue 1, the Court found that the petitioner had not been able to refer to any stipulation in the Partner Agreement that provided for payment on the score of procuring work orders. The filing of a civil suit after the FIR registration, without a cogent explanation for the delay, did not aid the petitioner. The Court noted that a co-accused had made a confessional statement implicating the petitioner. The transfer of a significant amount to the chartered accountant and parents of the co-accused, which was used to pay GST, along with the fact that the petitioner's address was found to be fake, indicated the possibility of custodial interrogation being required. Therefore, the Court concluded that the possibility of the requirement of custodial interrogation could not be ruled out and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Aakash Chaturbhuj Chhabaria, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offenses including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery. The complainant, HPE, alleged that its employee, Nitin Sharma, in collusion with others including the petitioner, illegally approved and over-drew Rs. 19,81,42,530/- from a rebate program. This amount was paid to non-eligible resellers, Atlantis (owned by the petitioner) and JT Solutions. The petitioner claimed the dispute was civil, arising from outstanding payments for work orders he secured for HPE, for which he filed a civil suit. The prosecution contended that the petitioner conspired with HPE employees to siphon funds, citing Nitin Sharma's confessional statement and the petitioner's transfer of Rs. 36,72,000/- to Nitin Sharma's chartered accountant and parents, which was used to pay GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, and the prosecution's contention that custodial interrogation is necessary? (Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Section 66D IT Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, as HPE owed him over Rs. 9 crore for work orders he procured, and he had filed a civil suit for recovery. He contended he was falsely implicated. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and complainant argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, conspired to siphon funds from HPE. They highlighted Nitin Sharma's confessional statement implicating the petitioner, the petitioner's transfer of funds to the chartered accountant and parents of Nitin Sharma for GST payments, and the fact that the petitioner's address was found to be fake. They asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the true facts.