Dismissed

Deepti Khamaru v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024ABAIL/5681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by a company director accused of fraud and embezzlement under multiple sections of the IPC, citing the gravity of the economic offence and the applicant's alleged previous criminal history.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deepti Khamaru vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130924

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5681 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deepti Khamaru Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar, Gaurav Tiwari, Vyomesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Sandeep Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.76 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶8

In short, the prosecution story is that the applicant being the director and other co-accused persons have embezzled amount of Rs.39,89,000/- of the informant by committing fraud.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The incident is alleged to have taken place in February, 2022 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 13.3.2023 i.e. about one year of the alleged incident but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. He further submits that the son of the applicant, namely, Debashish Khamaru is the Director of another company, namely, Wegentum Securities Private Limited and the applicant is the second director in the aforesaid company and the said company is duly registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Although the applicant being the director in the said company having one percent shares is the dominant director and as such applicant is no way involved in any share trading or investment of money nor she has any active role in the operation of the D-mat account and trading. From bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it clearly reflects that it was the applicant's son

¶10

Debashish Khamaru and Abhinandan Jain upon whom allegation have been levelled. Only allegation against the applicant is that he has given assurance to the informant for return of the money and except this, no other allegation levelled against the applicant. The investigation is still going on and till date no charge sheet has been submitted and there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant is the habitual cheater having previous criminal history of two case of same nature. One FIR being Case Crime No.35 of 2024 lodged against the applicant for embezzlement of Rs.3 crores whereas as another FIR being Case Crime No.36 of 2024 lodged against the applicant for embezzlement of Rs.27.5 lakhs. He has further submitted that anticipatory bail application of similarly placed co-accused Abhinandan Kumar Jain has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1809 of 2024.The allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶14

Further, in P. Chidambaram Vs. Director Of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 , the Apex Court has also held that grant of anticipatory bail particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. In the cases of corruption the custodial interrogation of an accused is necessary because he/she may provide the information leading to discovery of material fact and relevant information.

¶15

In Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.B.I., (2014) 8 SCC 682 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

¶16

corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the 1988 Act.

¶17

The anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the offence. Being an extraordinary remedy, it should be restored to only in a special case.

¶18

In the present case, perusal of record shows that there are serious allegations against the applicant regarding embezzlement of huge amount of Rs.39,89,000/- of the informant by committing fraud. The applicant is habitual in committing such type of fraud which clearly from bare perusal of paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of informant. The offence committed by the applicant is an economic offence of huge magnitude affecting the economy of the nation and interest of public/State. The offence has been committed with prior planning with an eye on personal profit totally disregarding the interest of the community and causing damage to the economy and ignoring national interest.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶21

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below and seeks grant of regular bail, his application shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.8.2024

¶23

Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepti Khamaru v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deepti Khamaru v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Pramendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangam Yadav vs State of Up

Badre Alam vs State of Up and Another

Siyadulari vs State of Up and Another

Gopal Das Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others