Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi dismissed an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning allegations of criminal breach of trust involving misappropriation exceeding Rs. 80 lakhs. The court determined that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances, particularly in cases involving economic offences, and found that no such circumstances were present in this case. The court further directed the Superintendent of Police concerned to take necessary action against the investigating officer for supplying witness statements to the complainant before filing of the charge-sheet and instructed the Director General of Police to issue a circular to all districts to avoid recurrence of similar conduct.

The case arose from an FIR lodged at Limbasi Police Station, District Kheda, alleging offences committed between 1 March 2023 and 30 September 2024. The complainant, proprietor of two rice mills, accused his long-term employee (accused no. 1) of misappropriating funds in collusion with the applicant, who owns a transport company. It was alleged that accused no. 1, entrusted with managing the rice mills’ day-to-day operations and given the passwords and OTPs for the complainant’s bank accounts, facilitated the transfer of more than Rs. 80 lakh to accounts connected with the applicant’s company. The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s company issued fake vouchers and bills, and received credited amounts for transport services that were never provided, as the applicant’s trucks never entered the rice mills to collect goods.

Also Read: IBC Moratorium Doesn’t Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Leased Property | Supreme Court Upholds CoC’s Commercial Wisdom In CIRP

The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two months from the conclusion of the alleged offence. He alleged suppression of material facts by the complainant, including that both rice mills were mortgaged to a bank, loans had become non-performing assets, and the premises were sealed by authorities due to non-repayment. The applicant asserted that he had no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged offence and that he was wrongfully implicated to shield the complainant from his loan liabilities. It was further submitted that in a similar FIR filed by the complainant’s wife, other accused persons, including a manager with a greater alleged role, were granted bail.

The State, through the learned APP, opposed the application, asserting that the applicant is closely related to accused no. 1 and actively participated in the misappropriation. The prosecution claimed that several documents and materials collected in the investigation established the fraudulent transactions. The complainant, through his senior advocate, maintained that while he had relied on his employee, accused no. 1, the latter abused that trust in connivance with the applicant to commit substantial fraud. It was alleged that fabricated vouchers and invoices were used to make fraudulent entries and credit payments into multiple accounts, without actual business transactions taking place. The complainant contended that further investigation might reveal additional acts of misconduct.

During proceedings, it emerged that the complainant had annexed to his affidavit witness statements obtained before the filing of the charge-sheet. The court noted that these statements were provided to the complainant by the investigating officer during the investigation.

Justice Joshi stated: "It is well settled that an application preferred for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted in exceptional cases. The parameters and considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases." Referring to judicial precedents, the court recorded: "Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation... The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases."

On the argument of false implication, the court stated: "In the opinion of this Court, the said contention... is misconceived in view of the facts of the present case." After examining the FIR and documents referred to by both the prosecution and the complainant, the court recorded: "[They] prima facie suggest involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime."

Addressing the premature sharing of witness statements, the court observed: "It is an admitted position of fact that investigating officer concerned is the master of the investigation... in spite of that... the investigating officer concerned had supplied copies of the statements of the witnesses to the complainant... Both the eventualities, prima facie, seem to be very dangerous and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the said practice adopted by the police is required to be curbed."

Also Read: Juvenile Over 16 Years Accused Of Heinous Offence Also Entitled To Bail Under Section 12 JJ Act | Patna High Court Quashes Denial As Contrary To Law And Facts

The court also referred to various Supreme Court rulings, including State Rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, and Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., outlining the principles governing anticipatory bail, especially in cases of large-scale economic offences.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had not established any special grounds under Section 482 of the BNSS to justify anticipatory bail. The court directed: "A copy of this order is required to be sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned for taking necessary action against the erring police officer/s." It further directed: "The Director General of Police is also directed to issue circular in this regard and inform the Police Commissioner/Superintendent of Police of all the Districts to impart training for awareness of the police officers in this regard with a sole intent to prevent this kind of incident in future." The Superintendent of Police was instructed to submit a compliance report regarding the action taken against the concerned officer.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Darshit R. Brahmbhatt, Advocate

For the Respondents: Hardik Soni, APP; Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate with Shrenik R. Jasani, Advocate

Case Title: Hirenbhai Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 24662 of 2024

Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi