Mohammed Azharuddin Mazhar @ Iqbal Shaikh vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicant had not approached the Court with true and correct facts, as evidenced by his inconsistent stand regarding his connection with M/s. Thea Distributors. Initially disowning any connection, he later admitted to managing the entity and operating its bank account. Furthermore, the Court found the franchise agreement, relied upon by the applicant to justify the ₹23 Lakhs as commission, to be suspect. The agreement was dated February 1, 2018, but was executed on a stamp paper dated November 2, 2018, and lacked the signature of the named franchisee, Mr. Vimal Patel, who had also disowned the agreement in his statement. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant had misled the Court. Therefore, the application for pre-arrest bail was rejected. The Court clarified that its observations were for bail purposes only and would not influence any other proceedings.

Facts

The applicant, Mohammed A. Mazhar @ Iqbal Shaikh, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offenses under Sections 406, 408, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, Rajasthan Aushadhalaya Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the applicant, while working as Chief Accountant, colluded with the sales manager to divert company products and sell them through his parallel business, 'M/s. Thea Distributors'. Approximately ₹23 Lakhs were allegedly received by M/s. Thea Distributors from these illegal sales. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated for refusing to alter company accounts and for providing true information to the GST authority. He also initially denied connection with M/s. Thea Distributors, later admitting to managing it and operating its bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the alleged misappropriation of company products and sale proceeds amounting to approximately ₹23 Lakhs. 2. Whether the franchise agreement presented by the applicant, purportedly showing the ₹23 Lakhs as commission, is genuine and supports his claim of innocence. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued he was falsely implicated because he declined to manipulate company accounts and provided accurate information to the GST authority during an inquiry against the complainant. He contended that Rajasthan Aushadhalaya had a franchise agreement with M/s. Thea Distributors, and the amount received was commission, not sale consideration for diverted products. He initially denied ownership of M/s. Thea Distributors but later admitted to managing it and operating its bank account. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The State's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but the court's reasoning implies the State opposed the bail application based on the alleged misappropriation and the applicant's inconsistent statements.