Birjesh Pandey vs. State

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the findings during the investigation which indicated a breach of trust by the petitioner and misappropriation of funds. The existence of undisclosed bank accounts with substantial transactions, coupled with the fact that the petitioner's wife's account also showed significant money movement, raised serious concerns. Furthermore, the verification of the rent agreement revealed that the premises were being used by another business entity, contradicting the petitioner's claim of solely using it for his own business after 2014. The Court found that the petitioner had diverted money in a 'very clever manner' and that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Brijesh Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 146/2019, registered under Sections 408/34 IPC. The complainant alleged that she and her husband employed the petitioner and his brother to manage their wholesale trading business due to her health issues. The petitioner and his brother, after gaining trust, allegedly started their own business using the complainant's godown and customers, depositing lesser payments than received and threatening the complainant when asked to return money. The petitioner claimed he worked as an apprentice with a stipend until 2014, then started his own business, M/s Shri Ram Foam House, and that the complainant's firm regularly supplied him goods and made payments. Investigation revealed the petitioner had undisclosed bank accounts with significant transactions, and his wife's account also showed substantial money transfers. The rent agreement for the godown was found to be in use by another entity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 146/2019, registered under Sections 408/34 IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was merely an apprentice receiving a stipend of Rs. 7,000/- until 2014, after which he resigned and started his own business, M/s Shri Ram Foam House. He provided a rent agreement for his business premises and a GST Certificate as evidence. He also submitted bills of goods and bank statements showing regular business transactions between his firm and the complainant's firm. He argued that the complainant's firm was dealing with his firm by sending goods and receiving payments through the bank. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State, through its investigation, revealed undisclosed bank accounts of the petitioner with transactions exceeding one crore rupees between 2011 and 2019. The petitioner's wife's account also showed significant transactions. The rent agreement submitted by the petitioner was verified, and it was found that a different entity was currently operating from the premises. The Court noted that the petitioner breached the complainant's trust and misappropriated money by diverting it in a clever manner.