Mohammad Nafis Memon vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court observed that there were no direct allegations against the applicant for misappropriating the amount, and the main allegations in the FIR were against four other individuals. The Court noted that the statement of Sujata Saraf and Harshwardhan Saraf indicated that the amount was deposited into their accounts by Yogesh Yadav. While acknowledging potential involvement of the applicant, the Court found that direct involvement was not apparent. Considering the nature of the allegations, the Court deemed it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to several conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court after charge-sheet filing, not leaving India without permission, and not involving himself in similar offences. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of considering the anticipatory bail application and would not influence the trial court.

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Mohammad Nafis Memon (the applicant) in connection with Crime No. 14/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur. The FIR was lodged by the Area Manager of CMS Company alleging misappropriation of Rs. 3,66,77,000/- from various ATMs during the Covid-19 period, in collusion with CMS Company employees. The prosecution story suggests that the applicant purchased gold jewelry and coins, and that amounts were deposited into the accounts of Axis Bank account holders, Sujata Saraf and Harshwardhan Saraf, by one Yogesh Yadav. The applicant claims to have GST bills for his purchases and denies direct involvement, stating there is no material against him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of misappropriation and the ongoing investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has GST bills for his purchases of garments and gold jewelry, indicating legitimate transactions. They contended that there is no direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged misappropriation and no material evidence against him, thus warranting anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the application, asserting the applicant's involvement and the necessity of custodial interrogation due to the ongoing investigation. They argued that the bail application should be dismissed.