A.K. Kumar @ Dr. Kumar @ Mr. Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application for applicant no. 2, Kirti Akhilesh Mishra. The Court considered the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, the submissions of both parties, the nature of the accusation, the role of the applicant, and all attending facts and circumstances. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant until the end of the trial. The reasoning appears to be based on the gravity of the alleged offences of fraud, forgery, and cheating, and the prosecution's assertion of a well-planned conspiracy and the collection of evidence. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, which emphasizes considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the role of the applicant. The operative direction was the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Facts

This case involves a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed by A.K. Kumar and Kirti Akhilesh Mishra. The applicant's counsel stated that A.K. Kumar had already been arrested and thus withdrew the application for him. The application proceeded for Kirti Akhilesh Mishra, who sought anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Director of M/s. Global Mode and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. concerning an order for face masks to Abu Dhabi. Global Mode Company transferred Rs. 3,02,40,000/- to M/s. Silicon Union for face masks, which also charged GST of Rs. 20,40,960/-. The GST was later refunded. Subsequently, Global Mode Company paid an additional Rs. 30,00,000/- to M/s. Silicon Union, totaling Rs. 4,58,60,160/-. The goods were not supplied by the due date, and the contract was cancelled. The applicant claimed innocence and that the allegations were false and fabricated. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving fraud, forgery, and cheating, leading to a loss of Rs. 3,03,19,200/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Kirti Akhilesh Mishra, is entitled to anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial, considering the allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC? Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant is innocent, and there is no credible evidence against her. The allegations are false and fabricated. She was previously granted anticipatory bail till the submission of the police report, which she did not misuse. She undertakes not to misuse any liberty granted and to obey bail conditions. Revenue (State/Informant): The accused, including the applicant, are part of a larger group of fraudsters who induced the informant's company into sham transactions without intending to supply face masks. They committed fraud, forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust, causing a significant financial loss. The investigation has collected documentary and oral evidence, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The case involves open fraud and forgery, and the accused cannot escape liability. The court should be guided by the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicant, and the facts of the case, as per the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.