Manvendra Singh Parihar vs. The State Of M.P.

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the applicants are serious, involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy, which have significant consequences for the complainant and the public. The account statement of the complainant for the period 25th to 30th October 2024, along with signed vouchers, indicated payments totaling ₹50 lakhs to Gautam Rai Rally, which were supported by documentary evidence. The Court found that the investigation is ongoing and custodial interrogation of the applicants appears necessary to ascertain the flow of funds, the source of the alleged offences, and for the recovery of documents and other evidence. The prima facie material suggests a coordinated modus operandi involving multiple individuals and substantial financial transactions. The Court noted the prior conduct of the applicants and allegations of their involvement in other financial irregularities, which necessitate strict judicial scrutiny and militate against granting anticipatory bail. Citing Apex Court judgments in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda and Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in cases of serious economic offences should not be granted as a matter of routine, and undertakings to deposit pecuniary amounts cannot substitute for custodial interrogation or proper investigation. The Court also noted that the anticipatory bail application of a co-accused with similar arguments was previously dismissed. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the need for custodial interrogation, and the settled legal position, the Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS to grant anticipatory bail. The applications were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, Smt. Priya Rally and Manvendra Singh Parihar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 288 of 2025, registered at Police Station Morar, Gwalior. The complainant alleged that the applicants, along with Gautam Rai Railly and Gulshan Rai, demanded ₹50 lakhs for releasing a mortgaged property and subsequently defrauded him of ₹50 lakhs. The complainant claimed to have paid ₹30 lakhs via voucher and ₹20 lakhs through Manvendra Singh Parihar. He discovered the property was not mortgaged as claimed and that the money was not deposited with the bank. The applicants, however, claimed a property transaction with the complainant for ₹20.70 crores, against which ₹1.40 crores was allegedly paid, and that a cheque for ₹80 lakhs issued by the complainant was dishonoured. They also alleged that the complainant issued a cheque for ₹3,54,95,000/- to Shreya Rally. The investigation is ongoing, and the applicants have been absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Adhiniyam, 2023, given the serious allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicants have been falsely implicated due to personal rivalry and the complainant's ulterior motive to retain their money. - The complainant's delay in lodging the FIR (25 days) without explanation is suspicious. - The alleged incident on 05.12.2024, if true, would have been captured by CCTV, but the complaint was filed after footage deletion. - The payments claimed by the complainant were part of a larger cheque transaction, and a cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured, indicating false statements. - The complainant issued a substantial cheque towards land consideration to Shreya Rally, which remains unpaid. - Gautam Rai Rally had advanced significant amounts to the complainant and his firms, which remain unpaid. - The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Gulshan Rai Rally was dismissed by this Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The allegations are serious, involving financial fraud with far-reaching consequences. - Account statements and vouchers support the complainant's claims of payments. - Custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the flow of funds, recovery of documents, and other evidence. - The applicants have a documented history of inducing persons into financial transactions and cheating them, with complaints in multiple states. - The dishonoured cheque was wrongly used by a co-accused to lodge a private complaint under Section 138 NI Act. - Reliance on Apex Court judgments in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda and Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. stating that anticipatory bail in serious economic offences should not be granted as a matter of routine, and undertakings to make good pecuniary losses are not grounds for bail. - The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Gulshan Rai Rally was dismissed on merits.