Chhavi Gautam vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the applicant was named in the FIR with specific allegations of misuse of the first informant's digital signature for monetary gain. The investigation had concluded, and the allegations were substantiated. The trial court had taken cognizance of the charge-sheet and summoned the applicant. The Court emphasized that the digital signature is a valuable security, and its use by another person without permission constitutes an offense. Given these circumstances, the Court did not consider it a fit case for interference and thus rejected the application.

Facts

The applicant, Chhavi Gautam, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) dated 18.01.2021, registered under Sections 406 IPC, later amended to Sections 408, 420, 120-B IPC. The FIR was filed by Rahul Gupta, the former Commercial Director of KEP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The allegations include the applicant colluding with others to commit fraud, stealing the first informant's digital signature, using it in tenders and before the Registrar of Companies for monetary gain without authorization, and threatening the first informant. A charge-sheet was filed on 06.07.2021, and cognizance was taken, leading to the applicant being summoned to face trial. The applicant contended that the allegations were false, that GST was of the company, and that a settlement with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was reached, with Rs. 25,00,000/- paid to the first informant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of misuse of digital signature and financial fraud? (Question of law and fact). The applicant argued that the allegations were false and baseless, that the GST involved was of the company, and that a settlement had been reached via an MoU on 31.07.2020, with the company fulfilling its obligations, including a payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The applicant also stated they were removed as Director on 03.03.2020. The first informant and the State argued that the applicant's digital signature was used after their removal as Director, citing an instance of an Rs. 80 lakh transaction on 29.12.2020. They contended that despite the MoU, the digital signature continued to be misused for monetary gain, and the investigation concluded with a charge-sheet, on which cognizance was taken.