Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief to 59-Year-Old Applicant in Financial Fraud Case, Finds Arrest “Quite Surprising” Despite Cooperative Conduct and Limited Role in Alleged Offenses Involving Joint Account Holdings and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to the applicant, a 59-year-old woman, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act. The Court’s decision relied on the applicant’s cooperative behavior with the investigation and her limited role in the alleged offenses, as indicated by her joint account holding with the co-accused.

Facts:

The applicant, fearing arrest in connection with an FIR registered on July 16, 2022, at Shrivardhan Police Station, Raigad District, faced allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating, alongside provisions under the MPID Act. The applicant highlighted her association with the case as being primarily through a joint account with her daughter, who is a co-accused and has previously received interim relief from the court.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail despite the allegations of involvement in financial misconduct, given her limited role and her compliance with investigation requirements.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The applicant argued that her role in the case was minimal, as she only held a joint account with the co-accused (her daughter). She emphasized that she had cooperated with the investigation by responding to notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., making multiple appearances before the Investigating Authority. Furthermore, she contended that none of the alleged offenses warranted imprisonment for more than seven years, hence custodial investigation was unnecessary.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail application, citing material evidence indicating substantial financial transactions between the applicant and another co-accused, suggesting possible involvement in the alleged offenses.

Analysis of the Law:

The court referenced provisions under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., which mandates notice and compliance for non-custodial offenses unless further investigation or custodial interrogation is justified. Given the applicant’s compliance with Section 41A notices, the court considered whether custodial interrogation was essential to the investigation.

Precedent Analysis:

The court reviewed an earlier order in favor of the co-accused (the applicant’s daughter), where interim relief was granted based on similar observations. The court questioned the necessity of arrest when the applicant had shown compliance and there was no substantial new material suggesting increased culpability.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the applicant’s status as a senior citizen and her cooperative approach with the investigation warranted leniency. The court found it “quite surprising” that the investigation team sought her arrest at this stage, despite prior knowledge of her limited involvement and the nature of the allegations.

Conclusion:

The court granted interim relief to the applicant, subject to specific conditions, including her continued cooperation with the investigation. She was instructed to post a bail bond of ₹25,000 and required to present herself before the Investigating Officer as needed.

Implications:

This decision reflects the court’s stance on balancing the right to liberty with investigation needs in financial fraud cases, especially where the accused demonstrates cooperation and the charges involve lesser punishments. The judgment also emphasizes judicial scrutiny over the necessity of arrest for senior citizens with minimal roles in alleged crimes.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Due to Mutual Settlement, Criticizes “Copy-Paste” Allegations and Emphasizes Police’s Duty to Avoid Over-Implicating Family Members in Marital Disputes