Abhishek Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the gravity of the allegations, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal emphasized considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicant, the likelihood of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence, and the risk of fleeing justice. The Court found the allegations to be serious, involving fraud of a huge amount, and concluded that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail was refused. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Abhishek Singh (the applicant) in Case Crime No. 170 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut. The applicant's father, a clerk at Canara Bank, allegedly used his position to deceive the informant. The applicant's father purportedly introduced the informant to Brijesh Singh (main accused and father of the applicant) and claimed his son, Abhishek Singh, worked in HR at a Noida company, to secure employment for the informant's nephew. Documents belonging to the informant's nephew were handed over to Brijesh Singh. Subsequently, GST registration was obtained in the nephew's name without his knowledge, leading to transactions worth approximately Rupees Nineteen Crores. The applicant is alleged to have been involved with his father and others in misappropriating these documents and facilitating these transactions. The investigation is ongoing, and the State has not filed a counter-affidavit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of fraud and misappropriation involving a significant financial sum. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent, has no connection to the matter, and the allegations are false. It was further submitted that the investigation is ongoing, no charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant's case falls under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant assured he would not misuse liberty and would cooperate with the investigation, expressing apprehension of arrest. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court's perusal of the record indicated that sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during the investigation, and custodial interrogation is deemed necessary due to the serious nature of the fraud involving a huge amount.