The Saket District Court has clarified that at the stage of an initial investigation involving serious allegations of diversion, siphoning, and misappropriation of company funds, where the accused has not joined the investigation despite notice, the money trail remains incomplete, the roles of co-conspirators are yet to be ascertained, and custodial interrogation is required, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
The Additional Session Judge Ranjeet Singh noted that the allegations in the FIR pertained to diversion, siphoning off, and misappropriation of company funds for wrongful gain. The Court took into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, the mode and manner of the commission of the alleged offence, and the fact that the accused/applicant had not yet joined the investigation despite notice having been issued by the IO.
The Court further observed that the investigation was at an initial stage, and that the identification of the beneficiaries of the siphoned funds, ascertainment of the roles of other persons involved in the conspiracy, and completion of the money trail were yet to be traced.
Briefly, the present matter arose from an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, filed on behalf of the accused/applicant Jugall Kishor Ratnu, seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered at PS EOW South on the complaint of one Dhruv Bhatia, alleging diversion, siphoning off, and misappropriation of company funds for wrongful gain in connection with the affairs of M/s Re-invent Agro Chain Pvt Ltd.
The accused/applicant contended that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent solely to harass him, that the dispute was purely commercial in nature, and that no cognizable offence warranting EOW investigation was disclosed. He further contended that he had no role in the decision-making process of the company and had no direct interaction or dealing with the complainant in relation to the company’s functioning, management, or financial affairs. He additionally submitted that the amounts received by him were towards rent/use and occupation charges, as the company operated from premises belonging to or under his control, and that he had duly joined the inquiry on various occasions.
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the application. The IO’s status report stated that the accused/applicant, in connivance with his son accused Aditya Singh Ratnu, had diverted, siphoned off, and misappropriated company funds for wrongful gain. The IO further noted that the accused had failed to produce any documentary proof, such as a rent agreement, lease deed, or sub-lease agreement, to substantiate his claim regarding the rent payments.
The IO additionally submitted that two other multi-victim complaints against the applicant and his son were pending inquiry before the EOW, that the applicant was not cooperating with the investigation, and that custodial interrogation of the applicant was required for the purposes of investigation.
Appearances:
Nischal Singh, Addl. PP for State
Anoopam N. Prasad, Gayatri Dahiya, Karnail Singh and Karan Bidhuri, Counsels for the complainant
Dhanesh Relan, Chetan Sinha, Jatin Bhatia and Shambhavi Pandey, Counsels for accused/ applicant