Mohd. Aihatesham Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the applicant's submissions regarding his unawareness and lack of connection to the transactions, which involved a substantial amount of Rs. 1,18,57,358/-, did not appear reliable. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege that should be granted only in exceptional cases and requires proper application of judicial discretion. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, the Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised in strict adherence to established legal principles and cannot be arbitrary. Given the factual scenario and the settled proposition of law, the Court concluded that no case for anticipatory bail was made out at this stage and accordingly rejected the application as being without merits. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Mohd. Aihatesham Khan, a partner in Cosmo Engineering. The applicant is apprehending arrest in relation to Crime No.171/2024 registered at Police Station M.G. Road, Indore, for offences including cheating and forgery. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused, prepared forged documents for drainage work for which no work order was issued. The applicant claims he is not directly involved, that the payment was received by another partner, Mohd. Siddiqui, and that he has been implicated based on a co-accused's statement. He offered to deposit Rs. 19.50 lakhs. The State and Municipal Corporation opposed the bail, citing substantial payments made against forged bills and the firm's GST/SGST payments, indicating the applicant's knowledge and involvement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of forgery and cheating involving substantial amounts paid against forged bills for construction work, and the applicant's alleged involvement as a partner in Cosmo Engineering? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant, Mohd. Aihatesham Khan, argued that he has no direct or indirect connection to the alleged transactions, that the payments were received by another partner, Mohd. Siddiqui, and that he has been falsely implicated based on a co-accused's statement. He contended that his name was misused and that he was unaware of the transactions. He also highlighted discrepancies in the amounts mentioned by the Municipal Corporation and offered to cooperate with the investigation and deposit a sum of Rs. 19.50 lakhs. He also submitted that the firm being an old contractor does not make him a habitual offender. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent/State and Municipal Corporation vehemently opposed the bail application. They submitted that a significant amount of Rs. 1,18,57,358/- was deposited into Cosmo Engineering's account, in which the applicant is a partner. They further pointed out that the firm had paid Rs. 2,32,498/- towards GST and SGST, contradicting the applicant's claim of unawareness. They also stated that the applicant received payments against forged bills and that other case files of Cosmo Engineering are under investigation, suggesting he is a habitual offender.