Nirajkant Subhashchandra Gupta vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicant's case was supported by the statements of API Nilesh Bagav and the applicant's chartered accountant. These statements indicated that the applicant had attempted to lodge a complaint against the informant for an illegal demand and that the informant had sought an apology and an assurance from the applicant. Consequently, the Court found that the occurrence of the incident as narrated by the informant was doubtful and remained a matter for investigation. Given the sufficient doubt cast on the informant's story, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not justified. The applicant was therefore protected by an order of anticipatory bail. The Court directed the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount in the event of his arrest.

Facts

The applicant, Nirajkant Subhashchandra Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered under sections 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by a Sales Tax Officer, Shailendra Jagannath Pende, who alleged that on December 31, 2020, during an inspection at the applicant's company, Vyankatesh Textile, the applicant tore his documents and asked him to leave. The applicant contended that he had lost his father six years prior, making the informant's claim that he would call his father improbable. He also claimed to have contacted the police to lodge a complaint about an illegal demand made by the informant. The court considered statements from API Nilesh Bagav and the applicant's chartered accountant, which supported the applicant's version of events, including his attempt to lodge a complaint about the informant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations made in the FIR, particularly regarding the applicant's conduct towards the Sales Tax Officer during an inspection, are credible and warrant custodial interrogation, considering the applicant's defense. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Sections 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that the informant's narrative was improbable, citing the death of his father six years prior. Asserted that he had attempted to lodge a complaint against the informant for an illegal demand. Relied on statements from API Nilesh Bagav and his chartered accountant, which corroborated his claim of attempting to report the informant's misconduct and suggested the informant sought an apology and assurance against further complaints. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State/Respondent beyond the initial FIR allegations. The APP produced a statement from API Nilesh Bagav.