Parveen Kumar vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court found that the alleged offences are serious economic offences committed with deliberation. The informant had placed trust in the petitioner, which was allegedly breached. The investigation is at an initial stage, and the police need to ascertain the petitioner's modus operandi and recover the equipment used for preparing fake documents. The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is required in such circumstances, citing the Supreme Court's decision in State vs. Anil Sharma, which held that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where custodial interrogation is necessary. The Court noted that the petitioner's submission of a different amount deposited, contrary to official records, prima facie corroborates the prosecution's claim of fake documents. The Court concluded that granting pre-arrest bail would hamper effective investigation, especially in economic offences. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Parveen Kumar, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 166 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, Dev Kumar Ray, alleged that the petitioner, who was filing his GST returns, had not deposited the GST amounts transferred to him. The informant claimed to have transferred ₹35,64,822/- to the petitioner's account for GST payments and consultancy fees. The police investigation revealed that ₹41,25,285/- was transferred from the informant's account to the petitioner's account, and ₹16,96,539/- was yet to be deposited. The police also asserted that the petitioner had invested a significant sum in a direct fund and that equipment used for preparing fake GST forms was yet to be recovered. The petitioner contended that the prosecution had changed the amount transferred and had submitted proof of filing GST returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offences? The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and has provided proof of filing GST returns. He contended that the prosecution had altered the amount of money allegedly transferred. The petitioner relied on the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly. The respondent (State) argued that the investigation is in its initial stages, and crucial evidence, including equipment used for preparing fake documents and the source of funds invested, needs to be traced. The State emphasized that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the full extent of the alleged misappropriation and that granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. The State relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning economic offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation.