IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No right per se is available to a third party to intervene and/or address Court, ceteris paribus, in relation to anticipatory bail.
(2) Anticipatory bail – Legitimate concern of State has to be factored in and Court will impose additional conditions to balance competing interests.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

This matter has been heard via video-conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel and Mr. Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned Assistant Counsel to the AG for the State and Ms. Asha Devi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel for the proposed intervenor.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the First Information Report viz. Riga PS Case No. 244 of 2020 dated 18.08.2020, instituted under Sections 406, 409 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). In this view, they have preferred the instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’).

4. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioners herein, petitioner no. 1 being the Occupier/Managing Director and petitioner no. 2 being the General Manager (Commercial) of Riga Sugar Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSCL’) respectively, is that the payments for purchase of the sugarcane made to the farmers as shown to the Government were actually for satisfying the Kisan Credit Card (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCC’) loan accounts in the name of such farmers.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the initiation of the FIR itself is improper for the reason that they have been made accused in their capacities of being connected with RSCL, which is a separate corporate entity and without RSCL being made a party, they could not have been made accused in their individual capacities, as has been done in the instant case. In this connection, learned senior counsel relied upon Sharad Kumar Sanghi v Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 and Sushil Sethi v State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 420.

6. Further, it was contended that the allegation itself is founded on erroneous grounds and also, more out of political compulsion(s) rather than any real acts, which may make/indicate any criminal liability against the petitioners. It was contended that the RSCL entered into a tripartite agreement with the concerned Banks and the farmers for advancing them loans under the KCC scheme, and the RSCL was the guarantor for the repayment of both the principal amount and the interest amount to the extent of upper limit of Rs. 3 lakhs per farmer. Moreover, in a documented agreement between the parties, the condition was that the proceeds from the sale of sugarcane by the farmers to the RSCL would be paid by RSCL to the concerned Bank in satisfaction of such KCC loan amount(s). Thus, Mr. Luthra contended that once the RSCL took full responsibility for satisfaction of the KCC loan along with its interest component, which till date it stands by, there could not have been any wrongdoing, much less any criminal offence, attributable to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the Bank has issued recovery notices to various farmers for non-payment of their loan amounts along with accrued interest is incorrect on the part of the Banks for they were themselves signatory(ies) to such tripartite agreement, which clearly stipulated that the RSCL took full responsibility for satisfaction of such accounts, inclusive of the principal as well as interest. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to various communications, inter alia, between the RSCL, the State Government and the concerned Banks which would indicate that all parties thereto were aware of such arrangement being in place from the year 2013 itself. It was submitted that only in the year 2018, when due to various factors, beyond the control of the petitioners, the RSCL went under with debt and was declared a Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as ‘NPA’) and, thus, the control of its finances primarily moved either into t