Nisha Pathak vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The case diary indicates that Rs. 36,59,836/-, alleged to be part of embezzled funds, was credited to the applicant's bank account, demonstrating her active involvement. The material on record suggests forged documents were used for unauthorized transactions, leading to alleged embezzlement/misappropriation of over Rs. 7 crores. The Court found prima facie evidence that the applicant, in conspiracy with others, participated in a scheme involving fraudulent transactions and diversion of funds through cheating and forgery. The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offences, and the material collected during the investigation, concluding that the applicant's alleged role did not warrant the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. The Court dismissed the application, stating that the grounds urged by the applicant did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and that custodial interrogation was necessary for tracing the flow of funds, confronting the applicant with evidence, and preventing dissipation of assets.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Nisha Pathak under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in relation to Crime No. 404/2025 registered at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Rewa. The prosecution alleges criminal breach of trust, embezzlement, forgery, fabrication of false documents, tampering with computer resources, and criminal conspiracy, causing financial loss to Shree Jee Infrastructure India Private Limited. The investigation revealed that during April 2018 to August 2025, approximately Rs. 3,76,41,321/- was transferred from the company's account to the personal accounts of relatives, including the applicant, for their benefit. Allegations include forging signatures to procure cheque books and link mobile numbers for unauthorized banking transactions. The applicant claims the amounts were transferred to her as a "sub-contractor" for GST evasion purposes and were subsequently withdrawn in cash as directed by company officials. The applicant also points to fictitious contractors created by the company and a separate CBI FIR against company directors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of financial fraud, forgery, and diversion of corporate funds amounting to several crores of rupees? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the amounts credited to her account were designated for her as a "sub-contractor" to evade GST, and these funds were subsequently withdrawn in cash and handed over as per company directions. She argues that the company itself created fictitious contractors and routed funds through various accounts. The petitioner highlights that a co-accused has been granted bail and asserts her innocence, lack of criminal history, and responsibility for two minor daughters. She claims the investigation is complete, charge-sheet filed, and she is in judicial custody, warranting bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and objector argue that the application should be dismissed as the applicant remained absconding and deliberately avoided investigation. They assert that the applicant's bank accounts received Rs. 3,81,19,058/-, out of which Rs. 3,80,67,750/- was withdrawn. Specific amounts of Rs. 36,59,835/- and Rs. 25,33,347/- were transferred without legitimate commercial basis, indicating diversion and money laundering. The prosecution contends that the applicant was not a passive member, her transactions involved substantial amounts, and part of the funds were used for Fixed Deposits and acquiring immovable properties. They argue custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail, identify beneficiaries, recover proceeds, and confront the applicant with evidence, and that granting bail would impede the investigation.