Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjeet Kumar Sahu vs The State And Anr on 9 April, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020
SANJEET KUMAR SAHU ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Kapil Sankhla, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for the R-
1/State with SI Laxman Kumar,
P.S.Fatehpur Beri.
Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate
with Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 09.04.2021
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 328/2020 under Sections 408/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri.
2. According to the petitioner, he joined the complainant company i.e. Holisol Logistics Private Ltd. (in short, 'Holisol') in May, 2016 as an Accounts-Executive being 12th Standard passed with no prior experience. According to the petitioner. He was employed on a salary of ₹15,000/- per month and due to the company being a logistics company, it was involved in various unscrupulous activities and it required cash from time to time for various reasons. To generate the said cash, the petitioner and one Lokesh Goyal also employed in Holisol in the Information Technology Department Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 1 of Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE Signed MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.04.2021 20:17:22 were asked to deposit the money in their saving accounts on behalf of the company and return the amount back to the company after withdrawing the cash. The petitioner and the other office bearers of the Holisol were given an incentive of ₹1000/- to ₹3000/- per transaction. The petitioner thus received amounts in his account and that of his wife Santosh, periodically withdrew the same and returned back the cash to Holisol. According to the petitioner, he did not spend any penny on any luxury products or luxurious life style. However, in the month of August 2019, petitioner felt some gross illegalities going on in Holisol and hence, he refused to comply with the directions of Holisol. Therefore, the petitioner was immediately relieved. Later on, it was also revealed that from the personal email ID of the petitioner, an apology email was sent to Subhash Deo and one Saroj Kumar of Holisol whom the petitioner reported for work, claiming that the petitioner made false entries.
3. Though the petitioner stopped going to Holisol, he was denied a relieving letter and due to economic constraint, the petitioner agreed and continued to receive funds in his accounts without going to Holisol till March 2020. Apprehending that the petitioner would be implicated in a criminal case, petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court which granted a relief of seven days pre-arrest notice vide order dated 23rd July, 2020. Thereafter, a police complaint was made by the petitioner against the company Holisol on 27th July, 2020 at Neb Sarai. However, as a counterblast Holisol registered the above-noted FIR at P.S. Fatehpur Beri.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Investigating Agency is changing its stand. Though initially the claim against the Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 2 of Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE Signed MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.04.2021 20:17:22 petitioner was that he siphoned off ₹25 lakhs, by the time the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it rose to ₹70 lakhs. He further contends that the petitioner was at the lowest rank in the hierarchy in the Accounts Department of Holisol and it is unfathomable that the petitioner continued manipulating the accounts and none of his superior officers detected the same. Despite the fact that the fraudulent transactions by the petitioner were detected in August, 2019, the FIR in question was filed belatedly i.e. after a delay of one year and that too, after the petitioner filed a complaint against the company. Even taking the allegations of the Holisol on their face value, the evidence is based on the bank transactions and hence, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The petitioner has joined the investigation and is willing to join the investigation as and when directed. The very fact that the petitioner was not indulging in any illegal activity is evident from the fact that even after the termination on the allegation of fraud in August, 2019, Holisol desired the petitioner to continue in its service.
5. The above-noted FIR was filed by one Anoop Raizada, Chief Financial Officer of Holisol claiming that on verification, it came to the notice of the company that the petitioner, in collusion with his accomplices, had indulged in cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, embezzlement/ misappropriation of funds from the company by various illegal methods like changing names of beneficiaries of funds transfer, depositing TDS in wrong accounts, processing incorrect reimbursements, entering fake bills etc. thereby causing wrongful loss to Holisol and wrongful gain to himself and his accomplices. The allegations in the FIR, inter alia, are that in August, Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 3 of Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE Signed MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.04.2021 20:17:22 2019, petitioner indulged in posting of fake transaction with a party named Civil Survey Consulting Service for ₹8.40 lakhs however, Holisol had never dealt with the said firm. On enquiry, the petitioner accepted his mistake and tendered his apology and resigned in August, 2019. Thereafter, further fraudulent transactions came to the notice of Holisol. Since the petitioner was entrusted with filling up the details of transfer of funds, he deliberately changed the bank account numbers for some transactions in order to guzzle those funds wherein the name of the beneficiary appeared to be correct but the money was actually transferred to the petitioner's account or accounts of his accomplices. As per the investigation carried out, petitioner had opened five bank accounts in different banks and a sum of ₹27,90,375/-, ₹1,43,282/-, ₹12,86,027/-, ₹2,44,367/- and ₹45,352/- were transferred to his bank accounts at DBS Bank, Axis Bank, Kotak Bank, ICICI Bank and Ratnakar Bank respectively. Besides petitioner, transfers were also made to account of one Lokesh Goyal and other bank accounts. While filing the TDS returns, petitioner used to change the PAN number in order to give benefit to ineligible party and by alteration of the PAN numbers, the petitioner gave benefit to himself and his wife Santosh besides one Yasin Khan with whom, Holisol had never entered into any transaction.
6. Petitioner further transferred a sum of ₹1.95 lakhs to Lokesh Goyal. Though, in the Ledger, the name of the beneficiary was rightly mentioned but the account number of Lokesh Goyal was entered. Further, ₹3.38 lakhs were transferred to Lokesh Goyal as reimbursement of the expenses to which Lokesh Goyal was not entitled. Thus, as per the investigation, the petitioner indulged in misappropriation for a sum of ₹74 lakhs approximately of the Holisol through multiple fraudulent transactions.
Signature Not VerifiedBAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 4 of
Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE
Signed
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:09.04.2021
20:17:22
7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner had taken the plea that it was Holisol which was indulging in transfer of money into various accounts of its employees and thereafter, compelling them to return the cash to avoid taxes, this Court vide order dated 15th January, 2021 directed the State to file a further status report indicating whether any other employee of the complainant company/Holisol also had multiple accounts i.e. more than one account in which cheques issued by Holisol were being deposited or substantial amounts were deposited in the employees' accounted and cash withdrawn from the same. A further status report dated 5th April, 2021 has been filed by the State.
8. As per the status report, the petitioner in his written submissions mentioned names of 21 persons/employees of Holisol in whose accounts, money had been deposited and cash withdrawn. According to the Investigating Officer, a verification of total 49 accounts found on the particulars of the said 21 persons/employees of Holisol in different banks was conducted. From the statement of accounts obtained, it was revealed that in the said accounts, salaries as well as bonus/incentives were transferred. No suspicious transaction or any subsequent cash withdrawals were found in the said accounts of the said 21 persons. Statements of the said 21 employees were also recorded who denied these allegations.
9. Investigation also revealed that the petitioner withdrew approximately ₹38 lakhs in cash from his ICICI Bank account from January 2020 to August, 2020. It was also revealed that a transaction of ₹5 lakhs was made to the account of one Suraj Kanta and ₹2 lakhs each in accounts of Ajay Kumar and his wife Sudha from the account of the petitioner. Statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded who stated that the petitioner purchased a plot of Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 5 of Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE Signed MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.04.2021 20:17:22 70 square yards through his maternal uncle Durvesh Kumar. During the course of investigation, copy of the GPA of 70 square yards plot executed by one Jitender Gupta in favour of Ishpal Sahu, father of the petitioner was also recovered. Durvesh Kumar stated that he had sold a plot of 44 square yards at H Block, Dhawan Farm, Sangam Vihar to the petitioner and a sum of ₹25 lakh was received for the same in cash.
10. Considering the nature of verification required to be carried out during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that since the transactions relate to documentary evidence only, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. As the transactions are multifold, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the exact nature of transactions and the number of transactions.
11. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
12. Petition is dismissed.
13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 09, 2021/akb Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3547/2020 Page 6 of Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE Signed MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:09.04.2021 20:17:22