Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sanjay Jagdishprasad Ladda, was a working partner of 'Sunidhi Securities'. He was accused in C.R. No. 147/2007 registered at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, for offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 417, and 418 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations were that he made fraudulent changes in the firm's records and bank account, prepared a false bank statement, and transferred shares of the firm into his own name by making false entries. The investigation revealed that he had committed criminal breach of trust of an amount exceeding Rs. 1 Crore during the financial years 2005-2008. The applicant did not make himself available for investigation and was absconding since 25.05.2007. He filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court at Latur, which was rejected on 01.10.2007. He then approached the High Court. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the fact that the applicant was absconding, and the need for custodial interrogation to recover documents and complete the investigation. The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation and his custodial interrogation was necessary. The application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Serious Economic Offences - Applicant, a working partner of a firm, was accused of fraudulent alterations in records and share transfers, causing loss of over Rs. 1 Crore - Applicant had been absconding since 2007 and did not cooperate with investigation - Held that custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation and recovery of documents, and anticipatory bail was not warranted (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, who had been absconding since the registration of the FIR and was accused of serious economic offences involving criminal breach of trust of over Rs. 1 Crore, should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, holding that the applicant had been absconding and that custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Serious economic offences
- Absconding accused
- Custodial interrogation
- Investigation
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 27
Criminal Application No. 841 of 2012
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar a/w Navandar Mehul Vikas, Mr. G.R. Ingole
Sanjay S/o Jagdishprasad Ladda
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 147/2007 registered at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur.
Filing Reason
The applicant was accused of multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and falsification of accounts, involving fraudulent changes in firm records and bank accounts, and transfer of shares.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Court at Latur rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application on 01.10.2007.
Issues
Whether the applicant, who had been absconding since the registration of the FIR, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation of serious economic offences involving criminal breach of trust of over Rs. 1 Crore.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he was a working partner of the firm and the allegations were false.
The State opposed the bail, contending that the applicant was absconding and that custodial interrogation was required to recover documents and complete the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi
In cases involving serious economic offences where the accused has been absconding and has not cooperated with the investigation, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should not be granted as custodial interrogation is necessary for the recovery of documents and effective investigation.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant did not make himself available to the police for investigation and interrogation after the registration of the offence.
The investigation that was carried out revealed that the applicant had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount more than Rs. 1 Crore.
In my opinion, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the purpose of proper investigation.
Procedural History
The FIR was registered on 25.05.2007. The applicant absconded. He filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court at Latur, which was rejected on 01.10.2007. He then filed the present application before the High Court, which was dismissed on 24.09.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 403, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 417, 418
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 438
