Sagar Tiwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the bail application of the applicant, Sagar Tiwari, for anticipatory bail is dismissed. The Court found that the case diary clearly reveals a huge amount, alleged to be part of embezzled funds, was credited to the applicant's bank account, indicating his active involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The material on record also indicates that forged documents were prepared and used as genuine for unauthorized and illegal transactions, leading to the alleged embezzlement/misappropriation of over Rs. 7 crores from the complainant company. The Court noted that the applicant, in conspiracy with other accused persons, participated in a well-planned scheme involving fraudulent transactions, whereby several lakhs of rupees were dishonestly diverted through acts of cheating and forgery. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the applicant's alleged role, the Court was not inclined to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. The Court did not explicitly address the parity argument in detail but implicitly rejected it by dismissing the application.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Sagar Tiwari under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant is accused in Crime No. 404/2025, registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Rewa, for offences including criminal breach of trust, embezzlement, forgery, and computer-related fraud. The prosecution alleges that Atul Pathak, the Chief Financial Officer of Shree Jee Infrastructure India Private Limited, transferred approximately Rs. 3,76,41,321/- from the company's account to the accounts of his relatives, including the applicant, between April 2018 and August 2025. These funds were allegedly used for personal benefit. The investigation also points to forged signatures being used to procure cheque books and link mobile numbers for unauthorized banking transactions, causing wrongful financial loss to the company. The applicant claims the funds were transferred to portray him as a 'sub-contractor' to evade GST, and he acted at the instance of company officials.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of active participation in a criminal conspiracy involving embezzlement, forgery, and computer-related fraud, resulting in a wrongful loss of over ₹7 crores to the complainant company? 2. Whether the applicant's defence of acting as a 'sub-contractor' for GST evasion purposes can exonerate him from criminal liability? 3. Whether the applicant's plea of parity with a co-accused, Kashi Prasad Pathak, who was granted regular bail, is sustainable in the context of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's arguments: The amounts credited to the applicant's account were transferred by the company directors to evade GST by portraying the applicant as a 'sub-contractor.' The amounts were withdrawn in cash, and the ultimate recipients are known to company officials. The applicant merely acted at the instance of company officials as part of an accounting arrangement to reduce tax liability. The FIR was lodged after the principal accused joined another company, and the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. Revenue/State's arguments: The allegations disclose active participation in a well-planned criminal conspiracy. Substantial amounts of misappropriated funds were transferred to the applicant's account, establishing him as an active beneficiary. The 'sub-contractor' defence is an admission of fictitious document creation. Economic offences are serious and affect societal financial health. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail, identify beneficiaries, recover proceeds, and confront the applicant with evidence. The plea of parity is misconceived as the co-accused obtained regular bail after arrest and judicial custody, and the considerations for anticipatory bail differ from regular bail.