Runa Rajput vs. The State

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The Court found force in the State's argument that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to ascertain the modus operandi and to recover mobile phones, SIM cards, computers, or laptops used for sending emails and engaging in conversations related to the alleged offence. The Court noted that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and had failed to produce the electronic gadgets as requested. The pendency of two previous criminal cases was considered as evidence of the petitioner's criminal antecedents and history. The Court reiterated the well-settled law on anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, antecedents, and the possibility of fleeing justice, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail could prejudice a free and fair investigation and that the petitioner's alleged role, the stage of investigation, her antecedents, and the potential for repeat offences weighed against granting relief. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Runa Rajput, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 46/18, registered under Sections 170/420/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was based on a complaint by Anil Kumar, Administrative Officer of the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), alleging a fake purchase order for electronic items worth approximately Rs. 11 lacs was placed with Reliance Retail Ltd. (RIL) using the Institute's letterhead, rubber stamp, GST certificate, and PAN card. The petitioner, a former Consultant at IICA, was accused of impersonating the former Director General and CEO and engaging in telephonic conversations with RIL. The delivery address provided was a house in Munirka Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner claimed she left IICA in February 2016, prior to the alleged purchase order date, and that her husband misused her email IDs and SIM card to falsely implicate her. The prosecution contended that the petitioner, using various email IDs and a specific mobile number, corresponded with RIL, provided fake documents, and that the mobile number and IP addresses used were linked to her husband and her. The rented accommodation used for delivery was also occupied by the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner had previously been granted bail in two other criminal cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and impersonation, and the stage of investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 170, 420, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and principles of anticipatory bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. She claimed to have left her consultancy role at IICA long before the alleged purchase order was placed and asserted her innocence, suggesting her husband falsely implicated her by misusing her credentials. She also pointed out that the lower court appreciated that nothing was in her possession requiring recovery. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was the mastermind of the attempted cheating, using specific email IDs and a mobile number linked to her husband. They contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to determine the modus operandi and recover electronic devices used in the commission of the offence, which were yet to be recovered. The State also highlighted the petitioner's lack of cooperation during the investigation and her criminal antecedents, citing two previous criminal cases where she had been granted bail after spending over a year in custody.