Bhartendu Gupta vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. The Court reasoned that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation, as indicated by the police's status report. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, confirming the interim protection granted earlier would amount to interfering with the ongoing investigation, which is prohibited. The Court noted the allegation that the applicant received a commission for submitting forged medical reimbursement bills and stated that the investigating agency should be at liberty to conduct the investigation to ascertain the truth. The Court further opined that custodial interrogation would be more effective than investigating an individual with interim protection. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the interim protection granted was withdrawn. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Bhartendu Gupta, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC apprehending arrest in FIR No. 3 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a complaint regarding the submission of abnormal medical reimbursement claims by Sh. Anand Prakash Verma and Sh. Manoj Gupta. Investigations revealed discrepancies in bills submitted for reimbursement, with GST numbers pertaining to a cancelled entity. It was alleged that the applicant, a Senior Assistant, prepared forged medical bills for Manoj Gupta and his wife in exchange for a 20% commission. Evidence, including a CPU and a laptop, was seized from the applicant's office and residence. A bank account in the applicant's name was also found to have received a deposit from Manoj Gupta. The applicant claimed innocence and cited the bail granted to co-accused Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anand Prakash Verma.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, considering the allegations of preparing forged medical bills and receiving commission, and the ongoing investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant claimed to be falsely implicated and stated that no recovery was to be effected from him as all records and electronic evidence had been seized. - He asserted deep roots in society as a permanent resident. - He argued for parity, stating that co-accused Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anand Prakash Verma had already been released on bail by this Court. - He offered undertakings to abide by any directions issued. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The State contended that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation. - They highlighted the seriousness of the allegations, including the applicant allegedly receiving commission for submitting forged medical reimbursement bills. - The State argued that confirming the interim order would interfere with the investigation. - They submitted that custodial interrogation would be more result-oriented than investigating a person with interim protection. - The State apprehended that if the interim order was made absolute, the applicant might destroy records, coerce witnesses, or hinder recovery.