N.V. Srinivasan vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.164/2023 of Nedupuzha police station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application

The prosecution case is that during the period from 03.08.2020 up to 18.02.2022, the petitioner obtained gold ornaments from the institution of the defacto complainant by promising to manufacture gold ornaments at an institution in Chennai and did not repay the amount of Rs.63,14,445/-and thereafter, created a forged GST invoice dated 22.12.2022 and thereby committed the above offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion, a complaint was filed alleging that between the period from 24.12.2022 to 7.1.2023 the accused had cheated the defacto complainant without returning the cash and gold ornaments that he had received from the complainant and gold ornaments weighing 1960 grams valued at Rs.96,70,900/ was misappropriated by the petitioner. In that case, the police had arrested the petitioner on 19.1.2023 and he was granted bail only in 1.2.2023. It is after that the present crime is registered which is FIR 164/2023 of Nedupuzha police station., Thrissur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was registered on 8/3/2023 and the alleged date of occurrence of the occurrence was recorded as 3/8/2022 to 22.12.2022. The allegation was that during the said period the petitioner had not returned the amount of Rs.63,14,455/- being the value of the gold ornaments given from the complainant's firm to one IBN Jewellery and had falsely raised an invoice and allegedly paid GST as though the petitioner had received the amounts in the invoice.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is more or less on the very same allegation that the second crime is registered in a different police station. He submits that the present crime is an abuse of process and prays for anticipatory bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that there is an allegation of forging of GST bill which led to the registration of the present case which is different from the allegations in the previous case. The present complaint was filed only after the forgery of the documents came to the notice of the complainant. Under such circumstances, a detailed investigation including the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

Learned Senior counsel Sri.B.Raman Pillai, instructed by Sujesh Menon appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner had won the trust of the defacto complainant and was acting as an agent for him, in selling gold ornaments manufactured by the petitioner. It was only when the accounts were checked by the chartered account that the factum of forgery of GST bills was noticed and that led to the registration of the second crime. He also argues that the firm IBN itself is fictitious and no license/permissions are given for the running of the said firm.

Having considered the rival submissions though I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations pertain to more or less the same period, the present allegation that the petitioner did not repay an amount of Rs.63,14,455/- but created a forged GST invoice dated 22/12/2022 so as to make it appear that he had made the payment to the complainant by allegedly paying only the tax portion, the said allegations require a proper investigation. Given the allegations now raised and the explanations for the registration of the second crime which is prima facie acceptable, I do not think that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail which might adversely affect a proper investigation. Considering the gravity of the allegations, in particular, the alleged forgery of GST bills, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. However, the following directions are issued:

In the event the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer in two weeks, he shall be interrogated and thereafter, shall be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction within the time prescribed by law. If the petitioner moves for bail, the court below shall, untrammelled by any of the observations in this order, consider the bail application on merits. If the petitioner does not surrender before the Investigating Officer, as directed above, the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest the petitioner as if no order has been passed in this case.

The bail application is disposed of as above.