The court emphasizes the seriousness of economic offences and the necessity of cautious judicial scrutiny in bail applications connected to large-scale financial fraud.

ORDER

This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.27/2017 registered by Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 409, 120- B of IPC and Sections 166 , 188-B of the Company Act.

As per prosecution story, on 26.02.2017, the present offence was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant Rajeev Shrivastava, Director of Esotech C.P. Infrastructure. The complainant submitted a written complaint alleging that the company had started construction and sale of a residential township at Gwalior under the name “Windsor Hill.” For execution of the said project, co-accused Manoj Shrivastava and Manager P.K. Shrivastava were appointed. It was alleged that they, in connivance with other persons, sold flats, villas and plots of Windsor Hill and did not deposit the sale proceeds with the company, and by committing forgery and deceit, cheated the company to the tune of approximately Rs.60 crores.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no prima facie offence is made out against him. It is contended that the applicant was neither a Director nor an office bearer of Esotech C.P. Infrastructure and had no role whatsoever in the management, execution, sale, or financial transactions of the alleged Windsor Hill project. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR and reflected in the case diary primarily pertain to co-accused Manoj Shrivastava and P.K. Shrivastava, who were entrusted with the responsibility of execution of the project and the applicant is not named in the original complaint, and his implication is founded on vague, omnibus, and bald allegations, without attribution of any specific overt act. It is further submitted that no documentary or other material has been placed on record to show that the applicant received any amount from the alleged sale of flats, villas, or plots, nor is there any evidence to indicate that he was a beneficiary of the alleged misappropriation of approximately Rs.60 crores and mere association or acquaintance with the co-accused cannot give rise to criminal liability, particularly in the absence of mens rea or active participation. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, is essentially civil in nature, arising out of commercial and contractual transactions, and has been given a criminal colour with mala fide intention. Thus, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that the investigation against the applicant is still pending under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no charge-sheet has been filed against him till date, which itself reflects that the prosecution does not possess sufficient incriminating material against the applicant. It is further submitted that even as per the prosecution story, no offence is made out against the applicant under Sections 420 , 406, 409, or 120-B of the Indian Penal Code , nor under Sections 166 (5) and 188-B of the Companies Act as the essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences are conspicuously absent insofar as the applicant is concerned. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR clearly demonstrates that the same has been registered against the applicant with mala fide intention and without any substantive material connecting him with the alleged offence. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code , learned counsel submits that the sine qua non for invocation of the said provision is entrustment of property or dominion over property and in the present case, there is neither any allegation nor any evidence to suggest that the applicant was entrusted with any property or exercised dominion over the funds of the company