AB/16/2024 of GOPAL KRISHAN GOUR Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 24 September 2024

1. Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that in compliance with this Court’s order dated 16.09.2024,the petitioner has presented himself before the Investigating Officer (I/O)whereupon, he was made to execute a bail bond. The I/O has alsoacknowledged his appearance and has indicated as such in his note dated17.09.2024, wherein he has stated that the petitioner has appeared beforehim on 17.09.2024 at 5:30 pm.

2. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the facts of the case is that the complainant has filed theFIR dated 07.03.2024 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner hadmisappropriated the money which is due to her and also has failed to payrates and taxes as required in respect of the Bonded Warehouse whichwas run by the complainant and as such, has committed an offence underthe relevant provision of law. The said FIR was accordingly registered asAraimile P.S. Case No. 25 (05) 2024 under Section 406/417/420/465 IPC.

3. The learned counsel also submits that the relationship betweenthe petitioner and the complainant is with regard to a Bonded Warehouseknown as M/s Gloria Bonded Warehouse, wherein vide General Power ofAttorney and also an agreement between the parties, he was allowed totake charge and run the said Bonded Warehouse and to give an account to the complainant, who is the owner of the same. However, in the month ofSeptember, 2021, the arrangement, agreement and relationship betweenthe two was severed, inasmuch as, the petitioner with the knowledge ofthe owner of the said Bonded Warehouse has agreed that he would handover charge of the said Bonded Warehouse to her and in the process, alldues, payments, etc. that ought to have been paid by him has beencomplied with. In fact, the petitioner has also executed another agreementdated 01.11.2023 to say in effect that since he is no longer in a position torun the business after the expiry of the said agreement, he had handedover the business to the complainant, and he has also cleared all the duesand liabilities towards the business which was also acknowledged by thecomplainant. However, to his surprise, the said FIR dated 07.03.2024 wasfiled by the complainant/owner of the Bonded Warehouse, alleging thathe has misappropriated and transferred a huge sum of money from theBonded Warehouse account to his own account and that he has also failedto pay Government dues amounting to crores of rupees.

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the allegationsmade are false, inasmuch as, the documents would indicate that in themonth of August, 2021, the relevant statement annexed as Annexure-12in this application, would show the position of the stock of the said Bonded Warehouse including the opening stock at the beginning of themonth and the closing stock total of which would come to 83338 liquorbottles.

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that thepetitioner apprehending arrest in view of such allegations, has thereforecome before this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, and atthis point of time for the interim bail granted to be made absolute withany conditions to be imposed by this Court even to the extent of paymentof any legal dues, if he is found liable to do so as far as the affairs of thesaid Bonded Warehouse is concerned.

6. Per contra, Ms. S. Ain, learned GA appearing for the Staterespondent has opposed the prayer made on the ground that investigationis going on and the I/O is yet to confront the petitioner as far as thepapers and documents are concerned to verify his assertion, vis-à-vis, hisplea of innocence in this matter. Under such circumstances, the learnedGA has submitted that this application may be dismissed.

7. This Court has given due consideration to the submissionmade, the facts as stated above may not be repeated, suffice it to say thaton the basis of the said FIR filed, a case was duly registered as mentioned hereinabove and investigation is on.

8. This Court, on consideration of the submission made by the parties, is made to understand that the grievance of the complainant isthat the petitioner herein has misappropriated the amount due andpayable in the name of said Bonded Warehouse and that the petitioner hasalso failed to pay the necessary taxes or dues to the Government. It wouldbe a matter of investigation to prove such allegations. However, as far asthe cause of apprehension is concerned, this Court would agree with thelearned counsel for the petitioner that there is apprehension on the part ofthe petitioner that he may be arrested at any point of time in connectionwith the said case.

9. It is well settled that in cases involving consideration of bail, the court would look into the nature and gravity of the offence alleged aswell as the antecedent of the applicant/accused, however, if theattendance of the accused person can be secured, then the courts moreoften than not, are inclined to allow the accused person/applicant to beenlarged on bail as that would serve the purpose of compliance with theprinciple of liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia.

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 at para 21 and 22,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that: - “21. In bail application, generally, it has been laiddown from the earliest times that the object of bail isto secure the appearance of the accused person at histrial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bailis neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation ofliberty must be considered a punishment, unless it isrequired to ensure that an accused person will standhis trial when called upon. The courts owe more thanverbal respect to the principle that punishment beginsafter conviction, and that every man is deemed to beinnocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated thatdetention in custody pending completion of trial couldbe a cause of great hardship. From time to time,necessity demands that some un-convicted personsshould be held in custody pending trial to secure theirattendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' isthe operative test. In this country, it would be quitecontrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrinedin the Constitution that any person should bepunished in respect of any matter, upon which, he hasnot been convicted or that in any circumstances, heshould be deprived of his liberty upon only the beliefthat he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty,save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

11. In view of the above observations, without going into the

merits of the case, at this point of time, considering the fact that thepetitioner has also appeared before the I/O, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby allowed. The interim bail is made absolute andin the event of his arrest, the petitioner is to comply with the followingconditions:

i)That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or witnesses;

ii)That he shall made himself available to the I/O as and when required;

iii)That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the I/O or the court concerned;

iv)That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the court concerned; and v)If the petitioner is a Passport Holder, he shall deposit the Passport with the I/O and to be retrieved only with due permission of the I/O.

12. With the above noted directions, this application isaccordingly disposed of. No costs.

Judge